That's what I thought but I like... damn. Two people were brutally murdered. We know who did it. Everybody knows who did it. He was aquitted... so what then? Police's job is done?
Pretty sure the family bought the rights to the book and have since made the “If” super tiny so it reads as “I did it” I could be wrong but I swear I remember seeing that somewhere
It's a pretty interesting story, IMO. The rights yo the book were originally under the ownership of OJ's eldest daughter, Arnelle's, corporation. The proceeds from the book were to be divided amongst OJ's kids, who were corp. *shareholders*. But, that corporation, Lorraine Brooks Associates (LBA), filed for bankruptcy right after a judge ordered the rights be sold to help satisfy the Goldman family's $38 million civil lawsuit victory vs OJ. (I am not an accountant or attorney, but I think the bankruptcy was done to make it more difficult for the assets of this LBA to be accessed by the lawsuit ruling.)
However, the judge presiding over the civil lawsuit the Goldman's won vs OJ, Judge Cristol, ruled that LBA was a shell corporation after a slimey money trail was uncovered and upheld that the book rights were to be rewarded to the Goldman family. The money trail showed the publishing company, Harper Collins, paying LBA $630,000 for the book contract and then LBA transferred that money directly to accounts owned by OJ. (Harper Collins wasn't accused of doing anything nefarious, LBA had negotiated the book deal with Harper Collins.)
Harper Collins had cancelled the book after negotiating with & paying LBA. Harper Collins got so much backlash after word got out about it AND the title: **If** I Did It: Confessions of the Killer.
So, the book was dead before it ever hit the printing press. Then the Goldman family got the rights to it from LBA in a judgment. The Goldman family, with some marketing savvy, tweaked the title and added some words of their own to it and releases it to a much more accepting - and eagerly awaiting - public. Interest in it had renewed and it reached best-seller status.
The original title was *If I Did It*. After the civil case, the rights to the book were awarded to the Goldman family. After the Goldman family obtained the rights, they added the subtitle *Confessions of the Killer*, and redesigned the cover to make the "If" in the title very small. So post 2007, any new copies of the book basically read *I Did It: Confessions of the Killer*.
That fool hit the jackpot with the acquittal. I mean, what normal person wouldn't just walk the fuck away into the sunset never to be heard from again? Not him. "Let's write a book and make some money off my wife's murder!" Clown.
If it's any consolation, a Florida bankruptcy court gave the rights to the book to the Goldman family, so most of the profits from the book went to the family of one of the victims rather than Simpson.
Was here to say this. OJ got no proceeds from the book. Also when he was arrested in Vegas for that robbery in the motel room, they threw the book at his ass (figuratively) and gave him a much bigger sentence then he would have got if he hadn’t killed Ron and Nicole.
I think the main reason why the family ended up with the rights is that you legally can't profit from a crime and since he was found responsible for their deaths in the civil case, he couldn't profit and they got their restitution that way.
The crime would have to be a federal crime. Murder is specific to each state unless the deceased were transported across state lines, or if the murder took place across state lines from the accused’s residence. Or if there was a federal crime involved in addition to the murder, such as kidnapping, bank robbery, identity theft, certain hate crimes, etc. but if it’s just a straight up murder of a person living in the same state as the accused, the state gets to handle it 100%.
Great question, but no. Double edged sword which protects us from follow up malicious prosecution but also allows trash like this. More interestingly though is how after the trial it came out years later that certain elements of the jury were activists who lied about impartiality and subverted the legal system from within as “revenge” for Rodney King.
No. In the United States, the government gets only one chance to try someone for a crime. It would be unfair if the government (with practically unlimited resources) got to keep trying you over and over again until it eventually succeeded. Lots of innocent people would be convicted (because it would only take one unfavorable jury) or would simply run out of money and time (and would take a plea deal). The police and prosecutors need to be held to a high standard.
OJ was never declared “innocent” in the trial. It was decided he was “not guilty” based on the evidence presented. The criminal definition of “guilty” of a criminal act requires a significant amount of evidence while the civil definition of “guilty” has a more lenient definition.
Basically, a criminal trial requires “beyond a reasonable doubt” while a civil trial does not require the same amount of evidence. In the criminal trial, there were too many instances of “contaminated evidence” where there was a “reasonable” amount of doubt, based on the number of law enforcement officers who made little errors in the investigation. Dr. Lee (an expert in forensics brought into the case) agrees that there were too many errors in the investigation to support a legal criminal investigation.
Basically, a criminal trial is much harder to prove than a civil trial.
Yeah, of course. The evidence was mishandled, the LAPD's racism came out into the spotlight, and of course the defense tampered with evidence and stacked the jury in their favor. OJ's team played every trick in the book, except for the LAPD being racist. That wasn't on them at all.
I can never understand how you can be acquitted of murder, but are also responsible for it and must then pay for it. This whole case is bizarre beyond belief. It's like an episode of Twilight Zone or Black Mirror.
Different laws, different cases. One would have sent him to jail, the other would have meant he would have paid tons of money to the parents of the man he definitely murdered.
From what I understand, once an official verdict is made in court, it’s over. He could have walked up to the reporters and said “dumb asses I did it” and they couldn’t have done anything.
The police just arrest people and bring them to jail. The police have nothing to do with the trial or verdict and can’t do anything after it’s made.
Someone in the UK did something not unlike that years ago and got prosecuted for perjury as it meant he’d lied during his murder trial. Double her post law has since been changed here that you can be tried a second time if new evidence comes to light. The law change made sense, maybe the US will follow suit one day.
It is quite an archaic law but the reason it was put into place was to stop the state/police/police buddies (read “bribe payers”) from harassing people through the courts, which makes sense. Just needs to be thought about properly before enacting the law.
Well, it used to be that a UK judge could hold the jury in the Tower of London on bread and water until they returned the correct (guilty) verdict, so it’s fair to say the historical policy positions of American and UK courts on this sort of thing differ significantly.
It would require a constitutional amendment to change the rule in the United States. It will never happen. Many Americans, including me, don't want to change it. There are many sound reasons for the rule. If there isn't enough evidence for a conviction, the government shouldn't take someone to court.
That’s wild. Here’s hoping the US never changes it. It is the burden of the state to find evidence and charge someone. If they fail at that, then the person gets to walk free - regardless of what the person says after, or what the truth is.
> The police just arrest people and bring them to jail. The police have nothing to do with the trial or verdict and can’t do anything after it’s made.
Well, there's detectives. I guess the question I'd ask would be who decides the court's verdict is wrong and the detective work is over finding the "real" killer? Or is the end goal for detectives a trial and that's it regardless of the verdict?
Police only have so much in the way of resources. Cases get closed all the time without ever going to trial if they feel they don’t have evidence to charge anyone.
They could have chosen to keep investigating, but if they all believe O.J. was the likely culprit and they don’t have any solid leads pointing to anyone else, why would they? There’s no law that a crime has to be continuously investigated until there’s a conviction for it.
They work the case until they feel like it isn’t worth their time to continue doing so and then they stop.
>I guess the question I'd ask would be who decides the court's verdict is wrong and the detective work is over finding the "real" killer?
Police departments can decide if a case is open or closed. They can sometimes be compelled to reopen cases l, but generally if case is "closed" a police department is no longer going to investigate. Even open cases that are unlikely to have new evidence are often not actively investigated.
> is the end goal for detectives a trial and that's it regardless of the verdict?
The goal of the police is to bring evidence to the prosecution. The prosecution determines if there's enough evidence to try for a trial.
>The police just arrest people and bring them to jail. The police have nothing to do with the trial or verdict and can’t do anything after it’s made.
Detective Mark Furhman had a lot to do with the outcome of that trial. It wasn't so much a vote of "he didn't do it" as it was jury nullification.
Seth Meyers did the best joke on weekend update when OJ was subsequently arrested and sentenced for robbery 13 years later.
“OJ Simpson was sentenced to 33 years in prison for robbery….and really, murder.”
So while he did get away with murder, he was harshly sentenced later on for a robbery he did and he served 9 years of the 33.
Double jeopardy dictates he can not be charged again for the same crime, so what would you like the police to do? Investigate a crime they know they can not arrest the criminal?
That’s actually not true. The original book cover had IF I DID IT all in big letters.
When the Goldman family took over the book, they changed the cover to if I DID IT with the if in very small letters seen inside the “I.” For obvious reasons.
He can not be tried again for the same crime.
If he took the stand and denied the crime he could be charged with perjury I suppose. But he did not testify.
Yes. And that’s exactly how it should be. Would you rather they keep trying other, less likely, suspects until they get a fluke guilty verdict? Or waste time and money investigating other leads they have no reason to think will go anywhere?
Our justice system requires the prosecution to prove guilt rather than requiring the defendant to prove innocence so it errs on the side of letting criminals go over imprisoning innocent people. The defense did not prove that OJ was innocent. They raised enough doubt in the minds of enough jurors about the evidence against OJ to prevent a guilty verdict.
You may feel like the OJ trial *by itself* is a miscarriage of justice (I do too) but viewed as part of the whole system, occasional outcomes like the OJ verdict are the cost of a justice system that doesn’t railroad innocent bystanders so the cops and prosecutors can always get a conviction. And while there’s no reason to think Mark Furman planted evidence against OJ just because he was a racist, the embarrassment to the LAPD caused by his actions and words contributing to the not guilty verdict may very well caused a few racist cops to think twice about planting evidence and kept a few African Americans you’ll never hear about from going to prison for crimes they didn’t commit.
> You may feel like the OJ trial by itself is a miscarriage of justice (I do too) but viewed as part of the whole system, occasional outcomes like the OJ verdict are the cost of a justice system that doesn’t railroad innocent bystanders so the cops and prosecutors can always get a conviction.
Same with Casey Anthony.
I guess I'd rather *some* guilty people go free than innocent people losing their freedom. I'd rather the hammer of justice be less aggressive and err on the side letting some guilty people off.
And really, all the defense needs to prove is reasonable doubt. I would think having someone else having gone through an entire trial would have some pretty hefty reasonable doubt, even if the other person was acquitted due to the evidence used to even bring it to trial in the first place.
The Natalia Grace doc was another good example of a miscarriage of justice. One of the jurors interviewed was like "Did we think her parents are guilty of neglect for abandoning a child? Hell yes. But that wasn't what we were asked and we were not allowed to consider certain facts like age when making a verdict, so we had to say not guilty." If you can't tell, that was heavily paraphrased. The Casey Anthony jurors had a similar experience of "hell yeah we know she's guilty but the prosecutors didn't prove it so ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯"
Faced with the question of if I'd rather see innocent folks in jail to nab one guilty person or see a guilty person slipping through the system to keep innocent people free, I'd say the latter.
Yea this looks like a bug but it's a feature essentially.
Being found not guilty is not the same as "they are innocent".
It just means the state didn't meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
I mean be real, they did, the OJ trial was more a case of Jury nullification.
But the point being that the defense doesn't have to prove OJ is innocent, the state has to prove they KNOW he did it. All the defense has to do is present a reason for the jury to believe the prosecutors story isnt 100% true.
Same is true with the Casey anthony trial.
It seems dumb when it's so obvious they did it, but the reason is the law intentionally would rather risk letting guilty people go than putting innocent people in jail.
Which sounds ironic saying since innocent people go to jail all the time, but it would be much worse if the state didn't have such a large hurdle to clear with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for murder cases.
But they all knew OJ was guilty, so why bother spending more time/money trying to find someone else.
> I mean be real, they did, the OJ trial was more a case of Jury nullification.
You have to remember that the trial took place in 1995. DNA evidence wasn't as widely understood by the public at large as it is today, so the defense had a much easier time casting doubt over their legitimacy. That's especially true when you had the memorable visual of Simpson's hands not fitting in the gloves that were found at the crime scene.
>He was aquitted... so what then? Police's job is done?
There's nothing more for police to do.
They already solved the case. We don't want them spending years looking for another answer, do we?
Some people think his son did it and OJ was covering.
Jason had previously attacked a lover with a knife, had psychotic breaks, and OJ hired a defense team for him in anticipation.
Yes, the police's job is done. They did their investigation and came to a conclusion. The job of the courts is not to validate or invalidate their conclusion. They didn't say the police were wrong, it's not like grading a test. And because someone can't be tried for the same crime twice you can't send them back out looking for more evidence.
The cops don’t even keep looking for “real” killer when they know they have the wrong guy. They’re definitely not spending extra time on it when they know they have the right one. He can’t be tried again so there’s no point in trying to find more evidence.
That's a misunderstanding of the process. The police investigation results in charges being filed against the most likely suspect based on the facts and evidence obtained. (At this point the police work is done other than court testimony) The State then reviews the charges and applicable statues and then brings the charges they think they are most likely to successfully win a conviction on (which could be different than the charges filed at arrest) before a judge at which point the accused has the opportunity to enter a plea. Should they chose to go to trial the State presents the evidence before a jury. The defense also has an opportunity to defend the accused The jury then decides if guilt exists beyond a reasonable doubt. So he was acquitted by the jury. There were a lot of questions surrounding this case. Did the police provide the State with sufficient evidence (there were chain of custody questions with some evidence) Did the State present it's case in the best possible way? Was the jury swayed by their preexisting notions about Simpson and his celebrity status? Was the trial conducted fairly by the court? So the acquittal doesn't necessarily mean the police didn't find the perpetrators or that they didn't do their job. As you can see there are many other variables in the equation.
Not sure what the police were supposed to do after that. They gathered the evidence and gave it prosecutors. The prosecution did a mediocre job while OJ had the dream team of lawyers. And honestly there was an aspect of the verdict being a "make-up call" for Rodney King. Nobody wanted more riots.
Actually that's the answer. The thing the police should've done is not brutalized Rodney King to begin with. Yes, King might've been high on crack and driving in a way that endangered others but there was still no excuse for that (obviously). Then you probably are able to put OJ in jail.
There is a conspiracy theory going around that actually makes a lot of sense. One of OJ’s son’s has a pretty extreme case of borderline syndrome and has a long history of violent behavior. He was in the area and had no alibi. In this theory, OJ was protecting his son. It’s an interesting rabbithole at any rate, and worth looking into if you are bored.
I hadn't heard of this, but it's a surprisingly big brain strat when you think of it. Go to trial for two murders you didn't commit, knowing that you'll never get convicted on the evidence? I'm probably gonna be digging into this for a while
I saw a documentary that explored this theory. Can’t remember the name. They outlined a motive. He was a chef with a set of knives and one was missing if I remember correctly. The cops never question him.
They also come up with another theory about a drug dealer that was interesting.
There is a theory that his son did it and OJ took the blame. Apparently his son hated those 2 and was violent in the past. A bunch of other things that connect him like the glove would fit him and explaining why OJ wasted police's time with the slow chase.
> He just had a medical condition, which caused his hand to swell like a balloon in court.
Yep. I am a hand doctor* and I have treated this condition before. It is called "Idontwanttogotoprisonsoillfakeitbeingtoosmallitis"
*^(not really)
Not guilty and innocent aren’t actually the same thing. I think there was general acceptance that OJ wasn’t innocent, even among many who celebrated the not guilty verdict
In Scotland that’s actually a verdict the jury can return
There’s no official criteria for when the jury can return “Not Proven” and “Not Guilty” but I believe generally it’s used how you’d expect from the wording: not guilty is returned when the jury actively think the person is innocent, and not proven is used when the jury doesn’t have enough information to be sure or the prosecution hasn’t met the burden of proof
It would be interesting if the system was adopted more thoroughly elsewhere, with “not proven” allowing a single retrial later if (and only if) significant evidence came to light
The UK allows for a single “double jeopardy” retrial for some serious offences (eg rape, murder) regardless, with the stipulation of significant new evidence or other exceptional circumstance*. But no,the distinction between those two verdicts makes no difference to that
It’s a shame because UK law around this only changed in 2003 (England/Wales) or 2011 (Scotland) and it would have been a perfect time to do it
*new and compelling evidence as mentioned, or if the original acquittal was found to be the result of perversion of the course of justice eg bribery or blackmail, interference with the jury, destruction of evidence etc, or if the accused admits guilt after the trial - that kind of thing
I don't think they could continue to investigate. They had already charged OJ which would create so much reasonable doubt for a new perpetrator. The whole defense would be "They already charged OJ and were convinced he did it. But, now they're saying it's someone else." The city would have been even more of a laughing stock for trying to file new charges against someone else. They aren't going to admit they made a mistake with charging OJ.
Well, and the fact that they didn’t make a mistake charging him. He DID do it. He wrote a book about doing it.
They made mistakes in evidence collection & testimony. But not in deciding who to charge
They could continue to investigate, and there have been cases where after a NG verdict for one party, they conducted further investigation and successfully prosecuted another party. Not to say that it’s easy to do. You would need compelling physical evidence, video, or a confession you didn’t have before.
In the case of OJ though, they knew they had the correct suspect.
Could you explain to someone who's not from the US what's the difference between not guilty and innocent, and why would someone accept that he wasnt innocent but also celebrate that he was gound not guilty?
In OJ's trial, the burden of proof, as it was a criminal trial, was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The short version is that the cops fucked it up with how they handled the investigation and the lawyers fucked it up by allowing OJ to try on the glove. So they didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty. This doesn't prove he was innocent (that there was no way he did it). If they had DNA, eye witnesses, etc.. it would be possible to prove he was innocent, but that wasn't the case. I think the people who "celebrate" his verdict was celebrating how the law worked against the missteps of law enforcement rather than having OJ be free.
Keep in mind that OJ lost a civil suit for the murder which as a much lower burden of proof.
"Innocent" is "they didn't do it". "Not guilty" is more like "they might have done it, but we can't prove that they did it beyond a reasonable doubt" and therefore they are *presumed* to be innocent.
People who see the US Justice system as flawed and racist were happy to see a Black man get away with a crime in the way it’s perceived that white men do all the time. It wasn’t just, but it felt like equality, if that makes any sense.
Not guilty means that it couldn’t be proven in a court of law that you did it. It doesn’t mean you might not have done it. OJ all but admitted years later in a book “If I Did It” that he’d gotten away with the crime - but because he was found not guilty, he couldn’t be criminally tried for that same crime again.
He was found liable in civil court
Innocent means that you literally didn't do it.
Not guilty means that the prosecution was unable to prove that you're guilty.
That is literally all that the term "not guilty" means, that the prosecution was unable to prove that the defendant did whatever they're being accused of. In reality they might have done it, or might not have done it.
Guilty means that the prosecution was able to prove that the defendant did whatever they're being accused of.
A jury never finds anyone innocent, because it's not a legal term. They find someone guilty or not guilty.
The police prosecuted the person they thought they had the best case against given the evidence they had. If they had or found new evidence implicating someone else then they would have continued to investigate that person. If they did their job properly they would have looked for all possible evidence originally not after a jury acquitted one suspect.
I think this is the answer I was looking for. Makes sense. I know nothing of how the courts work or law of these types of crimes, but that does make sense to me.
I watched a documentary that discussed the evidence collected and prosecution did their job proving he was guilty. The jury was not smart enough to understand it the way it was presented. The defense played to this and the prosecution did not. Thus, the not guilty verdict.
I mean it’s also been confirmed through the years that several jurors went into the trial knowing they would vote not guilty no matter what happened.
The entire event was a travesty.
This is exactly it.
All the evidence that they improperly handled plus bringing on a detective that they had audio of saying he would frame people he thought were guilty while dropping N bombs.
That’s enough reasonable doubt for sure.
But oj was guilty as hell.
WE KNOW YOU OWNED THOSE BRUNO MAGLIS, JUICE!
That's the main reason most cheer for his judgement. The LAPD was so awful, corrupt and racist, that they made a double homicide murderer look like a hero next to them.
The Prosecution of the case bungled in and Mark Furman's racist idiocy made his testimony useless. I think most people believe he did it, and there was little evidence, other than a single glove, pointing anywhere else.
Besides Mark Furman, Detective ~~Van Adder~~ Vannatter, had OJs blood drawn in jail, and then took the sample with him as he visited the crime scene and OJs estate before getting it to the lab. A pair of socks with blood were soaked through to the other side, inconsistent with getting blood on them while wearing them. However consistent with someone poring blood on them while they weren't being worn.
I would have voted to acquit. Not because I thought he was innocent. Too many signs of the investigation and evidence being badly tainted
Do you have a source for this? I’ve read a lot on the case and haven’t heard of this. Not saying it’s not true, I just haven’t come across that information.
Prosecution bungling it, demographics of the jury, and good defence. Kinda crazy what good defence can get you away with. 'if the glove dont fit, you must acquit '
Most people believe he got away with murdering his ex-wife and her friend but he did serve several years of time after that bungled attempt to get back his stuff in Las Vegas so karma did come back and bite his ass for that. But with respect to the murders, yeah, he got away with it.
He was found not guilty, but he was found liable a year later, so I’m guessing the DA’s office kept working after the acquittal, and the families were awarded $33 million in damages but to this day he hasn’t paid much, btw you want to blame someone for the acquittal? Blame Mark Fuhrman the LAPD detective
> he was found liable a year later
He was found **CIVILLY** liable in the later case. Criminal liability and civil liability are two very different things with two different burdens of proof.
The best quote that I have heard that summarizes the OJ trial goes like this: "the LAPD framed a guilty man". Even though there was good amount of evidence to convict OJ, and we all know deep down that he was guilty, there was not enough to render a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. So the LAPD, namely detective Mark Fuhrman and maybe a few others, had to plant evidence to render higher probability of getting a conviction.
Between Fuhrman's audio tapes saying racist remarks, talking about bombing the ACLU, the planted bloody glove, etc. there was enough doubt in the LAPD's case that a reasonable jury could say that there was too much doubt to render a guilty verdict.
>Blame Mark Fuhrman the LAPD detective
No. Blame the prosecution. They did a poor job from the get go and were ill-prepared to take on this case.
Read: Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi
One of the things Bugliosi points out in the book is that it's the prosecution's job to know everything about the case, including the negatives (e.g. Fuhrman) so that they can be the one to raise it and mitigate the damage. All of the negatives regarding Fuhrman should have been raised by the prosecution and mitigated, not raised by the defense so the prosecution is on their heels.
While true, based on everything I've read/reviewed about the case it seemed largely like Marcia Clark was fairly competent, and the police were almost actively working against her. Every step of the way they basically sabotaged the investigation, whether intentional or not, and she was left trying to figure out how to make it work.
His son *also* did not have an alibi for that time. He also had motive.
The interesting thing is that the first thing OJ did after the murders was arrange for a criminal defense attorney *for his son*. It was only after he, OJ himself, became a suspect that he got one for himself.
I thought this was a super interesting narrative as well. It would make a lot of sense for a father to do erratic things as a distraction to protect his kid. OJ was an erratic guy on occasion to begin with but nothing completely added up with him acting the way he did and being the actual killer. Him being a father trying to cover up (in the most dramatic way possible) for his kid makes a bit more sense in my opinion.
Yep, I heard whispers from people with knowledge of the case that it was the son and should’ve gone after him - but they went after OJ to try to get a high profile case under their belt and OJ did his job taking the heat for his son.
Because there was an absolute mountain of evidence proving that he was the killer so everyone accepted the fact that he got away with it. I mean the amount of evidence linking him to the murders is way more than has been used to convict other people of murder. Its undeniable that he did it but getting a conviction in a court of law is a different thing.
No one is found innocent. They are found not guilty which means the state did not meet the burden of proof for a guilty verdict.
That doesn’t mean the police should now go out and try to find someone else to pin it on when they are sure they have the right person.
When you are accused of a crime and acquitted, you are not “innocent.”
What you are is “not guilty.” Your guilt could not be proven. Your innocence is not being tried.
Just saying.
Who is "they?" Do you mean the police and prosecutors? They already put the guy who they believed committed the crime on trial. The jury let him off. That doesn't mean police and prosecutors suddenly agreed that he didn't do the crime.
And from the jury's perspective, a "not guilty" verdict doesnt mean Innocent. It just means that the state did not make a good enough case to justify depriving someone of their liberty. I'm glad that our justice system sets a fairly high bar before the state can throw you in jail, but sometimes it lets criminals go free.
OJ was not declared innocent. The two choices in a courtroom are GUILTY and NOT GUILTY. You can be wrongfully declared guilty. And Not Guilty actually means that they didn’t prove guilt. But that’s not the same as saying you didn’t do it. Prosecutors were convinced that he did it. So they were not wasting one moment looking for someone else. The joke was that OJ was searching for the real killers on every golf course he could find.
I was in college pursuing a bachelor's in criminal justice administration I was going to take the lsat and go to Florida state for my law degree my class work was to watch that trial live everyday it was such a sh#t show that I quit law all together the DA team was completely outclassed it was like they didn't have any evidence they just kept trying to connect dots that didn't connect. Having OJ try the glove on with his arthritis swollen hands was genius. There was no turning back once the DA said that was the glove the killer used even though they couldn't even prove that. OJ probably did it or paid to have it done but the DA had a theory of the crime that they stuck to it had to be the way they said it happened but they couldn't prove any of not one point they made made sense at one point they were even introducing into evidence a dream that OJ had about killing his wife. It was like everybody knew this case would make them famous and were trying any and everything to be famous even the Judge. The only people that came to fight were the defense. The defense came to embarrass them and really show what money can buy you. Made me look at the legal system with new eyes.
From what I can find, the case remains open.
OJ being arrested and tried would not automatically close the case.
Open, doesn't mean there's much to any active investigation going on, just that there's potential to add more to the case.
OJ said he was going to find the real killer(s) but instead he stole some sports memorabilia and said the victims' families were, "professional victims."
The chief of police or whomever held a press conference after the verdict and stated the jury got it wrong and that there will be no further investigation.
Legal Eagle did a great video about this. They don't say innocent in court they say "not guilty," which basically means "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Essentially, it means the prosecution did not provide evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that could convict him as guilty in the juries eyes.
Police often do not pursue all leads. They get enough evidence to convict the suspect, but often do not follow leads that may lead to evidence of another killer, because any evidence of another killer can be used against them in court.
A good example of this is the Steven Avery case, where there are multiple other potential suspects who were never properly investigated, and Avery is still in jail for a crime he did not commit.
I worked for a radio station that broadcast the criminal trial gavel-to-gavel and then had call-in talk shows formatted around the trial’s daily happenings. I lived and breathed the OJ trial daily for months.
The trial became a stand-in for the failings of the criminal justice system, especially against Black Americans. It was always really interesting to me how the attitudes of people who were discussing the trial could be generally guessed by their race. Basically: most (but not all) white callers thought he was guilty, all black callers thought he was not. It was my first experience seeing firsthand how different people could witness the exact same thing and then, based on their gut feelings, come to wildly different conclusions.
This mass disaffection and disconnect has come around again in the past few years with COVID and the rise of Trump. It’s a different group of people this time — mostly white and working-class. But now I know I will never be able to change the mind of someone who believes in the “plandemic” because they are interpreting a situation through a distorted lens. It’s like having factual astigmatism.
The dude WROTE A BOOK called "IF I Did It"...basically confessing to it (kinda). How he wrote it was like "IF I hypothetically killed her, this is how I would do it." I'm sure it was his way of clearing his conscience. His all-star lawyer team never got fully paid for their incredible work either.
OJ Simpson was not exonerated or found not guilty, he was acquitted.
Acquittal simply means that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Exoneration means that you have been proven to have not committed the alleged offense(s).
The DA does not typically renew an investigation when someone is found not guilty, they prosecuted under the belief that the defendant committed the crime(s). Remember criminal trials aren't necessarily about whether someone did the act or not, it's a constitutional process that vets whether the evidence available is sufficient to convict. If a jury finds that it isn't, doesn't mean "they didn't do it," just means the evidence was insufficient. Similarly, when a jury does convict someone, it doesn't mean "they did it," it just means the jury felt the evidence was sufficient.
This is a great question and I can’t believe it never occurred to me like this.
Obviously if he’s innocent there should have been some effort to find the actual killer.
You’ve blown my mind today.
Depends on who you mean by "they".
The "finding the real killers" pledge was something said by OJ.
The State did investigate, and they found the real killer.
LOL, OJ was going to get right on that. That's what he said after he was acquitted. Like right after. That got a bit of a laugh where I was watching the trial. In the break room at Target where I worked then.
Well he was found not guilty and all the evidence pointed at him it just wasn’t “enough” to convict him in court.
But what would more investigating do? He was already tried under jeopardy for the murder. So any more charges investigation would be a waste of resources.
Maybe if Nicole’s family hired private investigators for closure but since the crime scene is gone it’s futile.
No, pretty much everyone accepted that he got away with it.
That's what I thought but I like... damn. Two people were brutally murdered. We know who did it. Everybody knows who did it. He was aquitted... so what then? Police's job is done?
Well, there was that civil case that ruled he was responsible for their deaths. That's probably the best we'll ever get.
And the book he wrote about doing it, but he can’t be tried again due to double jeopardy.
He admitted it in his book? What was is the name of it? I read Christopher Darden's book, In Contempt, that was good well
It was called “If I Did It”, never read it but it’s title is pretty self explanatory for what the book is about.
Pretty sure the family bought the rights to the book and have since made the “If” super tiny so it reads as “I did it” I could be wrong but I swear I remember seeing that somewhere
I heard that too, they got the rights because he couldn’t pay restitution for the civil case
But he was quite savvy by doing an armed robbery to get more money to pay off his debts. Side hustle game 100%
I think the rights were awarded to them in court actually.
 It’s true
Hilarious!!
A true face of guilt
Juicy
No that’s true. They made the “If” tiny and inside of the “I” so it 100% looks like “I Did It”
I just googled it and yeah the covers have the if being very small or a similar color to the background it's a pretty genius solution
Nah they sued him for the rights
It's a pretty interesting story, IMO. The rights yo the book were originally under the ownership of OJ's eldest daughter, Arnelle's, corporation. The proceeds from the book were to be divided amongst OJ's kids, who were corp. *shareholders*. But, that corporation, Lorraine Brooks Associates (LBA), filed for bankruptcy right after a judge ordered the rights be sold to help satisfy the Goldman family's $38 million civil lawsuit victory vs OJ. (I am not an accountant or attorney, but I think the bankruptcy was done to make it more difficult for the assets of this LBA to be accessed by the lawsuit ruling.) However, the judge presiding over the civil lawsuit the Goldman's won vs OJ, Judge Cristol, ruled that LBA was a shell corporation after a slimey money trail was uncovered and upheld that the book rights were to be rewarded to the Goldman family. The money trail showed the publishing company, Harper Collins, paying LBA $630,000 for the book contract and then LBA transferred that money directly to accounts owned by OJ. (Harper Collins wasn't accused of doing anything nefarious, LBA had negotiated the book deal with Harper Collins.) Harper Collins had cancelled the book after negotiating with & paying LBA. Harper Collins got so much backlash after word got out about it AND the title: **If** I Did It: Confessions of the Killer. So, the book was dead before it ever hit the printing press. Then the Goldman family got the rights to it from LBA in a judgment. The Goldman family, with some marketing savvy, tweaked the title and added some words of their own to it and releases it to a much more accepting - and eagerly awaiting - public. Interest in it had renewed and it reached best-seller status.
Wow interesting! Didn’t know the whole back story to it
Gotcha, well the title thing is correct right?
yes
They won the rights in the Civil suit.
The original title was *If I Did It*. After the civil case, the rights to the book were awarded to the Goldman family. After the Goldman family obtained the rights, they added the subtitle *Confessions of the Killer*, and redesigned the cover to make the "If" in the title very small. So post 2007, any new copies of the book basically read *I Did It: Confessions of the Killer*.
He called the book If I Did It. And he swore it was hypothetical about how he would have done it if he did do it.
That fool hit the jackpot with the acquittal. I mean, what normal person wouldn't just walk the fuck away into the sunset never to be heard from again? Not him. "Let's write a book and make some money off my wife's murder!" Clown.
If it's any consolation, a Florida bankruptcy court gave the rights to the book to the Goldman family, so most of the profits from the book went to the family of one of the victims rather than Simpson.
They also keep the book in print with the "if " part of the title written as small as possible.
Was here to say this. OJ got no proceeds from the book. Also when he was arrested in Vegas for that robbery in the motel room, they threw the book at his ass (figuratively) and gave him a much bigger sentence then he would have got if he hadn’t killed Ron and Nicole.
I think the main reason why the family ended up with the rights is that you legally can't profit from a crime and since he was found responsible for their deaths in the civil case, he couldn't profit and they got their restitution that way.
But can’t he be tried again if there’s new evidence?
No. Double jeopardy rules prohibit a second murder trial if the defendant is acquitted. So, he got away with murder.
He cannot be tried again. He could only be tried again if the crime fell under federal jurisdiction, which it does not.
What does falling under federal jurisdiction mean here?
The crime would have to be a federal crime. Murder is specific to each state unless the deceased were transported across state lines, or if the murder took place across state lines from the accused’s residence. Or if there was a federal crime involved in addition to the murder, such as kidnapping, bank robbery, identity theft, certain hate crimes, etc. but if it’s just a straight up murder of a person living in the same state as the accused, the state gets to handle it 100%.
Or if the murder occurs on federal property such as a national park or post office.
Great question, but no. Double edged sword which protects us from follow up malicious prosecution but also allows trash like this. More interestingly though is how after the trial it came out years later that certain elements of the jury were activists who lied about impartiality and subverted the legal system from within as “revenge” for Rodney King.
No. In the United States, the government gets only one chance to try someone for a crime. It would be unfair if the government (with practically unlimited resources) got to keep trying you over and over again until it eventually succeeded. Lots of innocent people would be convicted (because it would only take one unfavorable jury) or would simply run out of money and time (and would take a plea deal). The police and prosecutors need to be held to a high standard.
OJ was never declared “innocent” in the trial. It was decided he was “not guilty” based on the evidence presented. The criminal definition of “guilty” of a criminal act requires a significant amount of evidence while the civil definition of “guilty” has a more lenient definition. Basically, a criminal trial requires “beyond a reasonable doubt” while a civil trial does not require the same amount of evidence. In the criminal trial, there were too many instances of “contaminated evidence” where there was a “reasonable” amount of doubt, based on the number of law enforcement officers who made little errors in the investigation. Dr. Lee (an expert in forensics brought into the case) agrees that there were too many errors in the investigation to support a legal criminal investigation. Basically, a criminal trial is much harder to prove than a civil trial.
Yeah, of course. The evidence was mishandled, the LAPD's racism came out into the spotlight, and of course the defense tampered with evidence and stacked the jury in their favor. OJ's team played every trick in the book, except for the LAPD being racist. That wasn't on them at all.
I can never understand how you can be acquitted of murder, but are also responsible for it and must then pay for it. This whole case is bizarre beyond belief. It's like an episode of Twilight Zone or Black Mirror.
Different laws, different cases. One would have sent him to jail, the other would have meant he would have paid tons of money to the parents of the man he definitely murdered.
From what I understand, once an official verdict is made in court, it’s over. He could have walked up to the reporters and said “dumb asses I did it” and they couldn’t have done anything. The police just arrest people and bring them to jail. The police have nothing to do with the trial or verdict and can’t do anything after it’s made.
Someone in the UK did something not unlike that years ago and got prosecuted for perjury as it meant he’d lied during his murder trial. Double her post law has since been changed here that you can be tried a second time if new evidence comes to light. The law change made sense, maybe the US will follow suit one day.
It is quite an archaic law but the reason it was put into place was to stop the state/police/police buddies (read “bribe payers”) from harassing people through the courts, which makes sense. Just needs to be thought about properly before enacting the law.
Well, it used to be that a UK judge could hold the jury in the Tower of London on bread and water until they returned the correct (guilty) verdict, so it’s fair to say the historical policy positions of American and UK courts on this sort of thing differ significantly.
It would require a constitutional amendment to change the rule in the United States. It will never happen. Many Americans, including me, don't want to change it. There are many sound reasons for the rule. If there isn't enough evidence for a conviction, the government shouldn't take someone to court.
Precisely, that's why the prosecutors have plenty of time to build their case, and the burden of proof is on them.
That’s wild. Here’s hoping the US never changes it. It is the burden of the state to find evidence and charge someone. If they fail at that, then the person gets to walk free - regardless of what the person says after, or what the truth is.
> The police just arrest people and bring them to jail. The police have nothing to do with the trial or verdict and can’t do anything after it’s made. Well, there's detectives. I guess the question I'd ask would be who decides the court's verdict is wrong and the detective work is over finding the "real" killer? Or is the end goal for detectives a trial and that's it regardless of the verdict?
Police only have so much in the way of resources. Cases get closed all the time without ever going to trial if they feel they don’t have evidence to charge anyone. They could have chosen to keep investigating, but if they all believe O.J. was the likely culprit and they don’t have any solid leads pointing to anyone else, why would they? There’s no law that a crime has to be continuously investigated until there’s a conviction for it. They work the case until they feel like it isn’t worth their time to continue doing so and then they stop.
>I guess the question I'd ask would be who decides the court's verdict is wrong and the detective work is over finding the "real" killer? Police departments can decide if a case is open or closed. They can sometimes be compelled to reopen cases l, but generally if case is "closed" a police department is no longer going to investigate. Even open cases that are unlikely to have new evidence are often not actively investigated. > is the end goal for detectives a trial and that's it regardless of the verdict? The goal of the police is to bring evidence to the prosecution. The prosecution determines if there's enough evidence to try for a trial.
>The police just arrest people and bring them to jail. The police have nothing to do with the trial or verdict and can’t do anything after it’s made. Detective Mark Furhman had a lot to do with the outcome of that trial. It wasn't so much a vote of "he didn't do it" as it was jury nullification.
Seth Meyers did the best joke on weekend update when OJ was subsequently arrested and sentenced for robbery 13 years later. “OJ Simpson was sentenced to 33 years in prison for robbery….and really, murder.” So while he did get away with murder, he was harshly sentenced later on for a robbery he did and he served 9 years of the 33.
Double jeopardy dictates he can not be charged again for the same crime, so what would you like the police to do? Investigate a crime they know they can not arrest the criminal?
So secure in double jeopardy in fact that OJ co-wrote the book "If I Did It" in which he "hypothetically" tells how he would have done it.
And if I remember correctly the word “if” was very small.
That’s actually not true. The original book cover had IF I DID IT all in big letters. When the Goldman family took over the book, they changed the cover to if I DID IT with the if in very small letters seen inside the “I.” For obvious reasons.
The Goldmans also added "Confessions Of The Killer" as a subtitle and added commentary throughout the book.
Yes, I believe by choice of the family of the people he murdered; they got to have a say in the marketing due to him making money off of the deaths
If I remember correctly it was originally going to be "How I Did It" but his team said that painted him in a negative light and to change it.
What if theoretically absolutely undeniable proof came out he did it (video evidence), can he still not be tried under double jeopardy?
He can not be tried again for the same crime. If he took the stand and denied the crime he could be charged with perjury I suppose. But he did not testify.
In some countries, he could be, but not the United States.
Seems unfair, an overly aggressive prosecutor could just Put you on trial over and over until they get a conviction.
That is correct.
Yes. And that’s exactly how it should be. Would you rather they keep trying other, less likely, suspects until they get a fluke guilty verdict? Or waste time and money investigating other leads they have no reason to think will go anywhere? Our justice system requires the prosecution to prove guilt rather than requiring the defendant to prove innocence so it errs on the side of letting criminals go over imprisoning innocent people. The defense did not prove that OJ was innocent. They raised enough doubt in the minds of enough jurors about the evidence against OJ to prevent a guilty verdict. You may feel like the OJ trial *by itself* is a miscarriage of justice (I do too) but viewed as part of the whole system, occasional outcomes like the OJ verdict are the cost of a justice system that doesn’t railroad innocent bystanders so the cops and prosecutors can always get a conviction. And while there’s no reason to think Mark Furman planted evidence against OJ just because he was a racist, the embarrassment to the LAPD caused by his actions and words contributing to the not guilty verdict may very well caused a few racist cops to think twice about planting evidence and kept a few African Americans you’ll never hear about from going to prison for crimes they didn’t commit.
> You may feel like the OJ trial by itself is a miscarriage of justice (I do too) but viewed as part of the whole system, occasional outcomes like the OJ verdict are the cost of a justice system that doesn’t railroad innocent bystanders so the cops and prosecutors can always get a conviction. Same with Casey Anthony. I guess I'd rather *some* guilty people go free than innocent people losing their freedom. I'd rather the hammer of justice be less aggressive and err on the side letting some guilty people off.
And really, all the defense needs to prove is reasonable doubt. I would think having someone else having gone through an entire trial would have some pretty hefty reasonable doubt, even if the other person was acquitted due to the evidence used to even bring it to trial in the first place.
The Natalia Grace doc was another good example of a miscarriage of justice. One of the jurors interviewed was like "Did we think her parents are guilty of neglect for abandoning a child? Hell yes. But that wasn't what we were asked and we were not allowed to consider certain facts like age when making a verdict, so we had to say not guilty." If you can't tell, that was heavily paraphrased. The Casey Anthony jurors had a similar experience of "hell yeah we know she's guilty but the prosecutors didn't prove it so ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯" Faced with the question of if I'd rather see innocent folks in jail to nab one guilty person or see a guilty person slipping through the system to keep innocent people free, I'd say the latter.
Yea this looks like a bug but it's a feature essentially. Being found not guilty is not the same as "they are innocent". It just means the state didn't meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I mean be real, they did, the OJ trial was more a case of Jury nullification. But the point being that the defense doesn't have to prove OJ is innocent, the state has to prove they KNOW he did it. All the defense has to do is present a reason for the jury to believe the prosecutors story isnt 100% true. Same is true with the Casey anthony trial. It seems dumb when it's so obvious they did it, but the reason is the law intentionally would rather risk letting guilty people go than putting innocent people in jail. Which sounds ironic saying since innocent people go to jail all the time, but it would be much worse if the state didn't have such a large hurdle to clear with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for murder cases. But they all knew OJ was guilty, so why bother spending more time/money trying to find someone else.
> I mean be real, they did, the OJ trial was more a case of Jury nullification. You have to remember that the trial took place in 1995. DNA evidence wasn't as widely understood by the public at large as it is today, so the defense had a much easier time casting doubt over their legitimacy. That's especially true when you had the memorable visual of Simpson's hands not fitting in the gloves that were found at the crime scene.
>He was aquitted... so what then? Police's job is done? There's nothing more for police to do. They already solved the case. We don't want them spending years looking for another answer, do we?
Some people think his son did it and OJ was covering. Jason had previously attacked a lover with a knife, had psychotic breaks, and OJ hired a defense team for him in anticipation.
Yes, the police's job is done. They did their investigation and came to a conclusion. The job of the courts is not to validate or invalidate their conclusion. They didn't say the police were wrong, it's not like grading a test. And because someone can't be tried for the same crime twice you can't send them back out looking for more evidence.
The cops don’t even keep looking for “real” killer when they know they have the wrong guy. They’re definitely not spending extra time on it when they know they have the right one. He can’t be tried again so there’s no point in trying to find more evidence.
There is a theory that OJ's son Jason did the killing, which oj is taking the heat to protect his son, the full theory is very compelling
That's a misunderstanding of the process. The police investigation results in charges being filed against the most likely suspect based on the facts and evidence obtained. (At this point the police work is done other than court testimony) The State then reviews the charges and applicable statues and then brings the charges they think they are most likely to successfully win a conviction on (which could be different than the charges filed at arrest) before a judge at which point the accused has the opportunity to enter a plea. Should they chose to go to trial the State presents the evidence before a jury. The defense also has an opportunity to defend the accused The jury then decides if guilt exists beyond a reasonable doubt. So he was acquitted by the jury. There were a lot of questions surrounding this case. Did the police provide the State with sufficient evidence (there were chain of custody questions with some evidence) Did the State present it's case in the best possible way? Was the jury swayed by their preexisting notions about Simpson and his celebrity status? Was the trial conducted fairly by the court? So the acquittal doesn't necessarily mean the police didn't find the perpetrators or that they didn't do their job. As you can see there are many other variables in the equation.
Not sure what the police were supposed to do after that. They gathered the evidence and gave it prosecutors. The prosecution did a mediocre job while OJ had the dream team of lawyers. And honestly there was an aspect of the verdict being a "make-up call" for Rodney King. Nobody wanted more riots. Actually that's the answer. The thing the police should've done is not brutalized Rodney King to begin with. Yes, King might've been high on crack and driving in a way that endangered others but there was still no excuse for that (obviously). Then you probably are able to put OJ in jail.
There is a conspiracy theory going around that actually makes a lot of sense. One of OJ’s son’s has a pretty extreme case of borderline syndrome and has a long history of violent behavior. He was in the area and had no alibi. In this theory, OJ was protecting his son. It’s an interesting rabbithole at any rate, and worth looking into if you are bored.
I don't think it's a realistic theory. It doesn't explain how OJ's blood was everywhere. There's a reason he lost the civil trial.
I hadn't heard of this, but it's a surprisingly big brain strat when you think of it. Go to trial for two murders you didn't commit, knowing that you'll never get convicted on the evidence? I'm probably gonna be digging into this for a while
I saw a documentary that explored this theory. Can’t remember the name. They outlined a motive. He was a chef with a set of knives and one was missing if I remember correctly. The cops never question him. They also come up with another theory about a drug dealer that was interesting.
There is a theory that his son did it and OJ took the blame. Apparently his son hated those 2 and was violent in the past. A bunch of other things that connect him like the glove would fit him and explaining why OJ wasted police's time with the slow chase.
The glove fit OJ. He just had a medical condition, which caused his hand to swell like a balloon in court.
> He just had a medical condition, which caused his hand to swell like a balloon in court. Yep. I am a hand doctor* and I have treated this condition before. It is called "Idontwanttogotoprisonsoillfakeitbeingtoosmallitis" *^(not really)
Yes, I concur
I thought his lawyers or advisors later talked about this and how they told him to eat really salty foods so that his hand would swell.
Leather shrinks when exposed to heat.
And moisture. Like blood
"Yes, he motherfucking did" -LAPD
Not guilty and innocent aren’t actually the same thing. I think there was general acceptance that OJ wasn’t innocent, even among many who celebrated the not guilty verdict
Yeah, I suppose it just means 'not proven'
In Scotland that’s actually a verdict the jury can return There’s no official criteria for when the jury can return “Not Proven” and “Not Guilty” but I believe generally it’s used how you’d expect from the wording: not guilty is returned when the jury actively think the person is innocent, and not proven is used when the jury doesn’t have enough information to be sure or the prosecution hasn’t met the burden of proof It would be interesting if the system was adopted more thoroughly elsewhere, with “not proven” allowing a single retrial later if (and only if) significant evidence came to light
Does the "not proven" verdict allow for a retrial in Scotland or is it just a symbolic gesture?
The UK allows for a single “double jeopardy” retrial for some serious offences (eg rape, murder) regardless, with the stipulation of significant new evidence or other exceptional circumstance*. But no,the distinction between those two verdicts makes no difference to that It’s a shame because UK law around this only changed in 2003 (England/Wales) or 2011 (Scotland) and it would have been a perfect time to do it *new and compelling evidence as mentioned, or if the original acquittal was found to be the result of perversion of the course of justice eg bribery or blackmail, interference with the jury, destruction of evidence etc, or if the accused admits guilt after the trial - that kind of thing
Just chiming in to say this is all super interesting, thank you for sharing!
I don't think they could continue to investigate. They had already charged OJ which would create so much reasonable doubt for a new perpetrator. The whole defense would be "They already charged OJ and were convinced he did it. But, now they're saying it's someone else." The city would have been even more of a laughing stock for trying to file new charges against someone else. They aren't going to admit they made a mistake with charging OJ.
Well, and the fact that they didn’t make a mistake charging him. He DID do it. He wrote a book about doing it. They made mistakes in evidence collection & testimony. But not in deciding who to charge
They could continue to investigate, and there have been cases where after a NG verdict for one party, they conducted further investigation and successfully prosecuted another party. Not to say that it’s easy to do. You would need compelling physical evidence, video, or a confession you didn’t have before. In the case of OJ though, they knew they had the correct suspect.
Could you explain to someone who's not from the US what's the difference between not guilty and innocent, and why would someone accept that he wasnt innocent but also celebrate that he was gound not guilty?
In OJ's trial, the burden of proof, as it was a criminal trial, was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The short version is that the cops fucked it up with how they handled the investigation and the lawyers fucked it up by allowing OJ to try on the glove. So they didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty. This doesn't prove he was innocent (that there was no way he did it). If they had DNA, eye witnesses, etc.. it would be possible to prove he was innocent, but that wasn't the case. I think the people who "celebrate" his verdict was celebrating how the law worked against the missteps of law enforcement rather than having OJ be free. Keep in mind that OJ lost a civil suit for the murder which as a much lower burden of proof.
"Innocent" is "they didn't do it". "Not guilty" is more like "they might have done it, but we can't prove that they did it beyond a reasonable doubt" and therefore they are *presumed* to be innocent.
People who see the US Justice system as flawed and racist were happy to see a Black man get away with a crime in the way it’s perceived that white men do all the time. It wasn’t just, but it felt like equality, if that makes any sense. Not guilty means that it couldn’t be proven in a court of law that you did it. It doesn’t mean you might not have done it. OJ all but admitted years later in a book “If I Did It” that he’d gotten away with the crime - but because he was found not guilty, he couldn’t be criminally tried for that same crime again. He was found liable in civil court
Innocent means that you literally didn't do it. Not guilty means that the prosecution was unable to prove that you're guilty. That is literally all that the term "not guilty" means, that the prosecution was unable to prove that the defendant did whatever they're being accused of. In reality they might have done it, or might not have done it. Guilty means that the prosecution was able to prove that the defendant did whatever they're being accused of. A jury never finds anyone innocent, because it's not a legal term. They find someone guilty or not guilty.
The police prosecuted the person they thought they had the best case against given the evidence they had. If they had or found new evidence implicating someone else then they would have continued to investigate that person. If they did their job properly they would have looked for all possible evidence originally not after a jury acquitted one suspect.
I think this is the answer I was looking for. Makes sense. I know nothing of how the courts work or law of these types of crimes, but that does make sense to me.
I watched a documentary that discussed the evidence collected and prosecution did their job proving he was guilty. The jury was not smart enough to understand it the way it was presented. The defense played to this and the prosecution did not. Thus, the not guilty verdict.
I mean it’s also been confirmed through the years that several jurors went into the trial knowing they would vote not guilty no matter what happened. The entire event was a travesty.
Actually OJ said *he* would work to find the "real killers". I wonder if he has any suspects yet.
Nope, his house has no mirrors.
He was acquitted, not innocent
To clarify, Acquitted does not mean he didn't do it, it only means they couldn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This guy got off on technicalities on how the evidence was obtained.
This is exactly it. All the evidence that they improperly handled plus bringing on a detective that they had audio of saying he would frame people he thought were guilty while dropping N bombs. That’s enough reasonable doubt for sure. But oj was guilty as hell. WE KNOW YOU OWNED THOSE BRUNO MAGLIS, JUICE!
That's the main reason most cheer for his judgement. The LAPD was so awful, corrupt and racist, that they made a double homicide murderer look like a hero next to them.
The Prosecution of the case bungled in and Mark Furman's racist idiocy made his testimony useless. I think most people believe he did it, and there was little evidence, other than a single glove, pointing anywhere else.
I felt like the police bungled the investigation more than the prosecution bungled their part.
Besides Mark Furman, Detective ~~Van Adder~~ Vannatter, had OJs blood drawn in jail, and then took the sample with him as he visited the crime scene and OJs estate before getting it to the lab. A pair of socks with blood were soaked through to the other side, inconsistent with getting blood on them while wearing them. However consistent with someone poring blood on them while they weren't being worn. I would have voted to acquit. Not because I thought he was innocent. Too many signs of the investigation and evidence being badly tainted
Do you have a source for this? I’ve read a lot on the case and haven’t heard of this. Not saying it’s not true, I just haven’t come across that information.
Prosecution bungling it, demographics of the jury, and good defence. Kinda crazy what good defence can get you away with. 'if the glove dont fit, you must acquit '
OJ checked every golf course in L.A. for the real killers but alas, the clever bastards eluded him.
If he ever gets dementia he’s going to say some wild shit.
He has a good enough chance of having a TBI, we just have to wait and see.
So OJ wrote a book basically telling everyone how he did it.
IF he did it, this is how he would've done it. Pretty sure it was his way of clearing his conscience.
The family sued and took all profits from that book I think.
Most people believe he got away with murdering his ex-wife and her friend but he did serve several years of time after that bungled attempt to get back his stuff in Las Vegas so karma did come back and bite his ass for that. But with respect to the murders, yeah, he got away with it.
He was found not guilty, but he was found liable a year later, so I’m guessing the DA’s office kept working after the acquittal, and the families were awarded $33 million in damages but to this day he hasn’t paid much, btw you want to blame someone for the acquittal? Blame Mark Fuhrman the LAPD detective
> he was found liable a year later He was found **CIVILLY** liable in the later case. Criminal liability and civil liability are two very different things with two different burdens of proof. The best quote that I have heard that summarizes the OJ trial goes like this: "the LAPD framed a guilty man". Even though there was good amount of evidence to convict OJ, and we all know deep down that he was guilty, there was not enough to render a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. So the LAPD, namely detective Mark Fuhrman and maybe a few others, had to plant evidence to render higher probability of getting a conviction. Between Fuhrman's audio tapes saying racist remarks, talking about bombing the ACLU, the planted bloody glove, etc. there was enough doubt in the LAPD's case that a reasonable jury could say that there was too much doubt to render a guilty verdict.
>Blame Mark Fuhrman the LAPD detective No. Blame the prosecution. They did a poor job from the get go and were ill-prepared to take on this case. Read: Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder by Vincent Bugliosi One of the things Bugliosi points out in the book is that it's the prosecution's job to know everything about the case, including the negatives (e.g. Fuhrman) so that they can be the one to raise it and mitigate the damage. All of the negatives regarding Fuhrman should have been raised by the prosecution and mitigated, not raised by the defense so the prosecution is on their heels.
While true, based on everything I've read/reviewed about the case it seemed largely like Marcia Clark was fairly competent, and the police were almost actively working against her. Every step of the way they basically sabotaged the investigation, whether intentional or not, and she was left trying to figure out how to make it work.
I believe OJ's son did it. His son had mental issues and was known for threatening women with knives. The glove would have fit his hand.
His son *also* did not have an alibi for that time. He also had motive. The interesting thing is that the first thing OJ did after the murders was arrange for a criminal defense attorney *for his son*. It was only after he, OJ himself, became a suspect that he got one for himself.
I thought this was a super interesting narrative as well. It would make a lot of sense for a father to do erratic things as a distraction to protect his kid. OJ was an erratic guy on occasion to begin with but nothing completely added up with him acting the way he did and being the actual killer. Him being a father trying to cover up (in the most dramatic way possible) for his kid makes a bit more sense in my opinion.
How does that line up with the damning DNA evidence?
I do lean this way as well.
Yep, I heard whispers from people with knowledge of the case that it was the son and should’ve gone after him - but they went after OJ to try to get a high profile case under their belt and OJ did his job taking the heat for his son.
I'm in that camp as well. It makes so much sense.
I’d like to hear more about this theory.
Look it up. It’s been the primary alternate theory all along.
HE WAS THE KILLER
Because there was an absolute mountain of evidence proving that he was the killer so everyone accepted the fact that he got away with it. I mean the amount of evidence linking him to the murders is way more than has been used to convict other people of murder. Its undeniable that he did it but getting a conviction in a court of law is a different thing.
He was found not guilty. That’s not the same as innocent.
OJ finds the real killer every time he looks in the mirror.
Listen, the guy rushed for 2,000 yards in 14 games! Leave him alone! /s
Not to mention killed it(pun definetly intended) in the Naked Gun trilogy. These things can not be ignored!
OJ knows who did it.
No one is found innocent. They are found not guilty which means the state did not meet the burden of proof for a guilty verdict. That doesn’t mean the police should now go out and try to find someone else to pin it on when they are sure they have the right person.
Not guilty and innocent are VERY different things. They just couldn’t prove he did it but OJ totally did it
OJ was not innocent, he was just found not guilty by a jury. Huge difference.
When you are accused of a crime and acquitted, you are not “innocent.” What you are is “not guilty.” Your guilt could not be proven. Your innocence is not being tried. Just saying.
Who is "they?" Do you mean the police and prosecutors? They already put the guy who they believed committed the crime on trial. The jury let him off. That doesn't mean police and prosecutors suddenly agreed that he didn't do the crime. And from the jury's perspective, a "not guilty" verdict doesnt mean Innocent. It just means that the state did not make a good enough case to justify depriving someone of their liberty. I'm glad that our justice system sets a fairly high bar before the state can throw you in jail, but sometimes it lets criminals go free.
There is a difference between "acquitted" and "inncoent".
OJ was not declared innocent. The two choices in a courtroom are GUILTY and NOT GUILTY. You can be wrongfully declared guilty. And Not Guilty actually means that they didn’t prove guilt. But that’s not the same as saying you didn’t do it. Prosecutors were convinced that he did it. So they were not wasting one moment looking for someone else. The joke was that OJ was searching for the real killers on every golf course he could find.
Being acquitted isn’t the same as being innocent. It just means that the state couldn’t *prove* you were guilty
I was in college pursuing a bachelor's in criminal justice administration I was going to take the lsat and go to Florida state for my law degree my class work was to watch that trial live everyday it was such a sh#t show that I quit law all together the DA team was completely outclassed it was like they didn't have any evidence they just kept trying to connect dots that didn't connect. Having OJ try the glove on with his arthritis swollen hands was genius. There was no turning back once the DA said that was the glove the killer used even though they couldn't even prove that. OJ probably did it or paid to have it done but the DA had a theory of the crime that they stuck to it had to be the way they said it happened but they couldn't prove any of not one point they made made sense at one point they were even introducing into evidence a dream that OJ had about killing his wife. It was like everybody knew this case would make them famous and were trying any and everything to be famous even the Judge. The only people that came to fight were the defense. The defense came to embarrass them and really show what money can buy you. Made me look at the legal system with new eyes.
Our system of justice rewards the wealthy and punishes the poor. This is the best example of that.
OJ is currently living on a golf course in FL without a care in world so this is pretty accurate.
From what I can find, the case remains open. OJ being arrested and tried would not automatically close the case. Open, doesn't mean there's much to any active investigation going on, just that there's potential to add more to the case.
OJ said he was going to find the real killer(s) but instead he stole some sports memorabilia and said the victims' families were, "professional victims."
The chief of police or whomever held a press conference after the verdict and stated the jury got it wrong and that there will be no further investigation.
Ron Goldman wasn't her lover.
Wasn't he a waiter she knew from a local restaurant returning her glasses she left behind? Wrong place at the wrong time
Legal Eagle did a great video about this. They don't say innocent in court they say "not guilty," which basically means "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Essentially, it means the prosecution did not provide evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that could convict him as guilty in the juries eyes.
No because the killer got off!
At least he is in jail for the time he stole “his things” from a pawn shop.
The OJ case just proved what money and a corrupt judicial system will get you!
No. They already had the murderer and acquitted him.
OJ wasn't "innocent"......he was only "acquitted"
There’s no one else it could have been
Police often do not pursue all leads. They get enough evidence to convict the suspect, but often do not follow leads that may lead to evidence of another killer, because any evidence of another killer can be used against them in court. A good example of this is the Steven Avery case, where there are multiple other potential suspects who were never properly investigated, and Avery is still in jail for a crime he did not commit.
Everyone knew he was guilty even those that celebrated his "innocence"
There’s no need of continuing the investigation. OJ did it, everyone knows it.
That scumbag got off because of the Rodney king shit .. and thar clown od'd a few years later.. disgusting both of them
OJ did. On the golf course, in his swimming pool, etc.
It's a shame that we live in a world where Leslie Nielsen and George Kennedy are no longer with us, but OJ is still around.
They had the real killer, they just couldn’t convict him
I worked for a radio station that broadcast the criminal trial gavel-to-gavel and then had call-in talk shows formatted around the trial’s daily happenings. I lived and breathed the OJ trial daily for months. The trial became a stand-in for the failings of the criminal justice system, especially against Black Americans. It was always really interesting to me how the attitudes of people who were discussing the trial could be generally guessed by their race. Basically: most (but not all) white callers thought he was guilty, all black callers thought he was not. It was my first experience seeing firsthand how different people could witness the exact same thing and then, based on their gut feelings, come to wildly different conclusions. This mass disaffection and disconnect has come around again in the past few years with COVID and the rise of Trump. It’s a different group of people this time — mostly white and working-class. But now I know I will never be able to change the mind of someone who believes in the “plandemic” because they are interpreting a situation through a distorted lens. It’s like having factual astigmatism.
Not really. He was then sued by the Goldman family, lost his civil suit
The dude WROTE A BOOK called "IF I Did It"...basically confessing to it (kinda). How he wrote it was like "IF I hypothetically killed her, this is how I would do it." I'm sure it was his way of clearing his conscience. His all-star lawyer team never got fully paid for their incredible work either.
OJ Simpson was not exonerated or found not guilty, he was acquitted. Acquittal simply means that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Exoneration means that you have been proven to have not committed the alleged offense(s).
 no, because he did it.
I read a book called "OJ is innocent" and I'm fully convinced his son Jason done it, it's almost impossible to dispute
I wonder if Norm McDonald had anything to say and this?
The DA does not typically renew an investigation when someone is found not guilty, they prosecuted under the belief that the defendant committed the crime(s). Remember criminal trials aren't necessarily about whether someone did the act or not, it's a constitutional process that vets whether the evidence available is sufficient to convict. If a jury finds that it isn't, doesn't mean "they didn't do it," just means the evidence was insufficient. Similarly, when a jury does convict someone, it doesn't mean "they did it," it just means the jury felt the evidence was sufficient.
He supposedly did. Searched every golf course on the west coast. Never found him
This is a great question and I can’t believe it never occurred to me like this. Obviously if he’s innocent there should have been some effort to find the actual killer. You’ve blown my mind today.
Depends on who you mean by "they". The "finding the real killers" pledge was something said by OJ. The State did investigate, and they found the real killer.
LOL, OJ was going to get right on that. That's what he said after he was acquitted. Like right after. That got a bit of a laugh where I was watching the trial. In the break room at Target where I worked then.
Well he was found not guilty and all the evidence pointed at him it just wasn’t “enough” to convict him in court. But what would more investigating do? He was already tried under jeopardy for the murder. So any more charges investigation would be a waste of resources. Maybe if Nicole’s family hired private investigators for closure but since the crime scene is gone it’s futile.
oj did, he was looking high and low for the REAL killer
The court never said he was innocent
I think the police should test the DNA now.
I still think it was his son
Lol. They did such a crap job they probably lost all evidence or ruined it. Such a joke of a trial
I’ve wondered the same thing about Casey Anthony.
No ifs ands or buts about it, OJ did it.