Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
StepMonsterInLA

I Did It- OJ Simpson’s Confession

Recommended Posts

StepMonsterInLA

Fox aired a 2006 interview of OJ by his book publisher.  It was chilling to watch this monster detail the night of the horrific murders. I have such vivid memories of the crime, Bronco chase, trial and verdict. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unimpressed
clueliss

I watched and between what I'm going to call the weird double speak and the facial expressions, eye shifts and twitches I was again creeped out by the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demonfan

One of the things that bothers me most about this case is how it is the OJ show. It's all about the cult of personality that is OJ and not about domestic violence, stalking and murder. Nicole and Ron were lost in the OJ narrative. Really infuriating and tragic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?
4 hours ago, Demonfan said:

One of the things that bothers me most about this case is how it is the OJ show. It's all about the cult of personality that is OJ and not about domestic violence, stalking and murder. Nicole and Ron were lost in the OJ narrative. Really infuriating and tragic.

On a nightly news segment about the interview, they didn't even bother to use Ron Goldman's name. They just said, "O.J. Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend." It bugs me when crime victims' names get forgotten, but the perpetrators' names get immortalized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demonfan

The denial and minimizing of the horrendous abuse Nicole suffered was vile. Ron, unfortunately, is a forgotten victim. Bravo to his family for having the strength to go after OJ in a civil case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StepMonsterInLA

Nicole’s children lost all.

I have a different take away from this broadcast. He does not enjoy a cult status IMO, though the trial became the original media circus and certainly affected the behaviors those involved, if not the verdicts.  My dad made the comment to me, when I was 23 and he was aquitted and I was outraged, that he would never be accepted into polite society.  It is a kind of elitist notion, but in retrospect a fitting, albeit inconsequential, punishment for the sociopath-murderer. Glad he followed it up with a weapons and kidnapping charge.  

I disagree with the statement that domestic violence and Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman are “lost in this narrative”. How can you extract the victims of a double homicide from 2 hour long interview with the murderer and relevant commentary and arrive at that conclusion?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Briefly
On 3/13/2018 at 7:00 PM, Demonfan said:

The denial and minimizing of the horrendous abuse Nicole suffered was vile. Ron, unfortunately, is a forgotten victim. Bravo to his family for having the strength to go after OJ in a civil case.

The Goldman family got the rights to the book OJ wrote and called "If I Did It." Mr. Goldman had it published and re-titled "I Did It" and the author is listed as The Killer. I skimmed through it and I have zero doubt that OJ did in fact do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mischievous
Blahblah

After everything I’ve read or seen I’m most convinced by the glove. Apparently it had been wet, and leather tightens as it dries. Also OJ went off his arthritis meds, causing his hands to swell. So the “smoking gun” evidence as in “if it doesn’t fit you must acquit” was yet another piece of stage management.

And I understand that Kris Jenner is in record that Robert Kardashian believed OJ did it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puzzled
Fascinated

Robert Kardashian's face when the verdict was read says it all.  He definitely expected, and desired, a guilty verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sad
Palimpsest
3 hours ago, Blahblah said:

After everything I’ve read or seen I’m most convinced by the glove. Apparently it had been wet, and leather tightens as it dries. Also OJ went off his arthritis meds, causing his hands to swell. So the “smoking gun” evidence as in “if it doesn’t fit you must acquit” was yet another piece of stage management.

Very well stage managed.  Also if you look at the footage watch the way OJ puts his hand into that glove.  It is deliberate and rehearsed.  Normally when you put on a glove you hold your fingers and thumb together to get them through the wrist area and then spread them apart into the glove fingers later.  Bad explanation.  Try putting on a glove to see what I mean.

OJ has his fingers and thumb spread slightly apart from the outset as he pretends the glove is far too small.

I was glued to the trial when it was going on.  According to Mr. P, I was also remarkably prescient about it.  When the glove evidence first came forward he claims that I said, "Oh shit.  The cops framed the right guy."  As the trial went on it was clear that the blood evidence wasn't properly handled.  It was a "what not to do" lesson for police procedure.

I also predicted that prosecution was going to lose.  It was when I found I was confusing the defense and prosecution weeks before the verdict.  It seemed the defense was prosecuting the LAPD instead of the DAs prosecuting OJ.  I just knew OJ would walk.

I was still beyond angry and disappointed when the verdict went down.

I didn't watch the interview.  I refuse to watch Fox anyway and I don't want ever to see that monster OJ's face again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puzzled
Fascinated

The jury reached an incorrect verdict and I doubt there are many people who truly believe otherwise. However, I believed then, and believe now, that, based on the disaster that was the prosecution’s case, that they had no choice.  By the letter of the law, it is impossible to say that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was shocking that after such a long trial, the jury deliberated for a mere four hours, but I was not surprised by the verdict. The jury did not find OJ to be innocent, of course, but I still believe that they could not find him guilty, based on that sham of a trial.  What a fascinating mess it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cleopatra7
On 3/24/2018 at 9:57 AM, Fascinated said:

The jury reached an incorrect verdict and I doubt there are many people who truly believe otherwise. However, I believed then, and believe now, that, based on the disaster that was the prosecution’s case, that they had no choice.  By the letter of the law, it is impossible to say that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was shocking that after such a long trial, the jury deliberated for a mere four hours, but I was not surprised by the verdict. The jury did not find OJ to be innocent, of course, but I still believe that they could not find him guilty, based on that sham of a trial.  What a fascinating mess it was. 

To understand how the OJ verdict came about, you have to factor in the racial tensions caused by the Rodney King incident and decades of hostile policing in black neighborhood by the LAPD. These issues remain largely unresolved to this day, given how many unarmed black people are still being shot by police on camera with no repurcussions. Consequently, many black people interpreted the OJ verdict as a kind of cosmic victory for all of the black men who had ever been accused, rightly or wrongly, of looking at a white woman the wrong way:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/497570/

Was the verdict a direct revenge for the Rodney King verdict? I obviously can’t say, but that’s the way it felt at the time. This juror, at least, admits that this was the case:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-juror-not-guilty-verdict-was-payback-for-rodney-king/amp/

Thus, when we try to understand why the O.J. trial turned out the way it did, we have to consider the racial backdrop as opposed to just saying the jury was stupid or the prosecution messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Briefly

I can't remember the name of the book I read not too long back, but it was written by a crime scene investigator and he had quite a bit about the OJ case.  There was quite a bit that was never introduced during the trial and it was all pretty serious.  The author went into a lot of detail and he had no doubt that OJ is guilty and I don't either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glasgowghirl
On 17/03/2018 at 12:12 AM, Briefly said:

The Goldman family got the rights to the book OJ wrote and called "If I Did It." Mr. Goldman had it published and re-titled "I Did It" and the author is listed as The Killer. I skimmed through it and I have zero doubt that OJ did in fact do it.

The book legally still had to be called 'If I did it' but they cleverly put the 'if' on the cover so you could barely see it. I read it when it was released and came to the conclusion he definitely did it, I was 8 at the time of the trial so didn’t really know much or understand the big deal about it. I'm glad he served time for robbery but that doesn't change the fact two people died and he got away with murder. 

 

On 24/03/2018 at 1:57 PM, Fascinated said:

The jury reached an incorrect verdict and I doubt there are many people who truly believe otherwise. However, I believed then, and believe now, that, based on the disaster that was the prosecution’s case, that they had no choice.  By the letter of the law, it is impossible to say that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was shocking that after such a long trial, the jury deliberated for a mere four hours, but I was not surprised by the verdict. The jury did not find OJ to be innocent, of course, but I still believe that they could not find him guilty, based on that sham of a trial.  What a fascinating mess it was. 

Here in Scotland we have 'not proven' as an option when the jury believe their is guilt but not enough evidence to convict. It's controversial but it seems appropriate in this case. In Scotland though, double jeopardy is scrapped, if enough new evidence is found to convict. A case close to home for me was the murder of Amanda Duffy, she was murdered in an neighbouring town her killer, Francis Auld, managed to get found 'not proven' his parents lied for him and hired Scotland's top lawyer, Donald Findlay, his teeth marks were on her body and he was seen with her before she died. They did attempt to bring another case against him but he died of cancer before any successful attempt could be made. Her parents set up a charity that helps grieving families.  But, two other cases have been successful, Angus Sinclair was found guilty of the 'world's end murders' and Ronnie Coulter, of the racially motivated murder of Surjit Singh Chhoker. I wish OJ could be held accountable for killing Nicole and Ron Goldman the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×