Pretty safe to say that anybody over the age of 40 in the US has an opinion on OJ Simpson and if he did or didn’t do it (ie: get away with murdering his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman).
Back in 1994 the gruesome murders and subsequent show trial, that was broadcast in its entirety and had the public across the US hooked on their TVs, dominated the news from the iconic white Bronco chase right through to the controversial not guilty verdict.
The showy and dramatic trial was a pop culture wet dream, packed full of over-the-top grandstanding moments, courtesy OJ’s dream team, headed by the infamous Johnny Cochran…”If the glove don’t fit you WILL acquit!” and co-starring Robert Kardashian, in the halcyon days before his daughter Kim propelled the family into a whole new and equally unsavory superstardom with the release of her cringe-worthy sex tape with then-boyfriend Ray J.
At the time people’s opinions were split firmly down color lines—a CBS poll that was taken directly after the trial’s end found that 64 percent of whites believed Simpson was guilty, 11 percent not guilty, compared to 12 percent and 59 percent of blacks comparatively. Over the years that figure has shifted, with a poll that was taken 20 years later showing 59 percent of black people, and 83 percent of whites now believe the ex-NFL great was guilty.
Looking back it’s easy to understand why the disparity was so great at the time—the trial followed hot on the heels of the acquittal of four LAPD police officers–three of them white–who had taken part in the horrific beating of unarmed African American Rodney King. The shocking verdict sparked five days of rioting and shed light on racial and economic disparity in the USA in addition to police misconduct and heavy-handed use of force against citizens—an issue that’s sadly still prevalent today.
Amongst the African American community, mistrust of the police was at an all-time high, and there’s no doubt that factored heavily when it came to the majority-black jury’s verdict. Plus, one of the jurors, Carrie Bess, later claimed in the four-part “Made in America” ESPN series that she was amongst “90 percent of jurors” seeking “payback” for the Rodney King verdict.
That said if you put aside the racial motivators that led to the verdict (a pretty impossible task, admittedly), there are still a lot of questions to be raised when it comes to the state’s case against OJ. And it’s intriguing why so many people refuse to address that issue—it’s like modern-day political ideology—you either believe in one thing, period, or you’re “stupid” “delusional” and “ignorant” for daring to question what’s supposedly set in stone.
Right from the get-go, the LAPD had tunnel vision, Simpson was the perp and they were going to build their case solely around him. Now, in fairness, they had very good reason to suspect that—OJ and Nicole had had a highly tumultuous and volatile marriage and there was a well-documented history of domestic abuse and violent threats that the athlete-turned-pundit-turned-actor had made against his ex.
In addition, there’s the fact that an estimated 61 percent of women’s murders are carried out by their partner or an ex. Oh, and there’s no getting away from the fact that OJ appears to display more than enough traits to likely qualify him as a bonafide psychopath—narcissism, superficial charm and glibness, shallow experience of feelings or emotions, impulsiveness, lack of inhibition and empathy, aggression and a grandiose sense of his own worth…amongst others.
However, although that should have definitely made him a primary suspect, it shouldn’t have made for a cut and dry case, but by all accounts, that’s exactly what authorities appear to have believed.
Without doubt, Simpson was worthy of suspicion, and his actions post-trial have done little to dispel that belief. He appears to have displayed little to no compassion or empathy towards the grieving families of Brown or Goldman, and instead behaved in a shockingly indifferent and antagonistic manner. Simpson’s oftentimes seemingly unbelievable conduct culminated in the outrageous book he published in 2007, “If I Did It” which outlined a hypothetic description of the murder of Brown and Goldman.
Simpson refused to stay out of the limelight, and continued his pattern of aggressive behavior, thumbing his nose at the authorities, and in 2007 he orchestrated an armed robbery against Bruce Forman, whom OJ claimed possessed a number of his personal sports memorabilia items. Simpson, along with a bunch of armed buddies strong-armed their way into Forman’s Las Vegas hotel room, held him hostage at gunpoint and demanded he return the memorabilia.
The 70-year-old was sentenced to 9-33 years in prison for orchestrating the robbery, he was granted parole on July 20, 2017, and was a free man once again just over two months later, having served 9 nine years behind bars.You would think that the now 72-year-old would have finally learned his lesson and would live out his final years laying low and keeping out of the spotlight—but c’mon now, this is OJ friggin’ Simpson y’all.
The Heisman trophy winning running back continues to still live it large, staying at a friend’s palatial estate just outside of Vegas where he can regularly be spotted driving around the neighborhood in a borrowed Bentley, and is a regular golf player and Twitter fanatic.
Despite his criminal case resulting in a not guilty verdict, the Brown and Goldman families won two civil suits against OJ in 1997, where he was ordered to pay $33.5 million to the grieving families. To date he has paid an estimated 1 percent of the award.
So, yeah, given the circumstances, the ex-Buffalo bills player is a pretty deplorable and highly unlikeable figure. However, does that automatically make him guilty of the murders of Brown and Goldman—did OJ Simpson really do it or not?
Let’s face it, at this point there’s really only one person who can truly answer that question and that’s Simpson—or, could there in fact actually be two?
Enter renowned private investigator William C Dear who makes a compelling argument in his book “OJ Is Innocent And I Can Prove I” that although, yes indeed Simpson was present at the murder scene shortly after the crimes were committed (the footprint and blood evidence is overwhelming
when it comes to proving that), there was actually somebody else who was responsible for the slayings—and it’s a pretty shocking claim.
The author asserts that the murders were actually carried out by OJ’s then 24-year-old son, Jason Simpson, the stepson of Nicole Brown.
Dear argues that the fact literally no-one other than OJ was ever investigated or questioned about the crime is pretty inconceivable and it certainly seems that the cops decided very early on that they had their man and any evidence that didn’t fit with their narrative was disregarded, and anything else found at the scene was used to further their agenda and bolster their theory–whether it was relevant or not.
The “Proof’ (as put forward by William C Dear)
- Jason’s medical records
Jason had been diagnosed with “intermittent explosive disorder” and was prescribed the drug Depakote to control his seizures and rages. Jason had attempted suicide on at least thee occasions, one time stabbing himself in the stomach. Literally six months before the killings, Jason had visited the emergency room because he heard voices in his head and said he felt as if he was “going to rage” because he had run out of Depakote. He had stopped taking Depakote two months before the murders.
- His violent History
Jason had previously nearly killed a girlfriend and cut off her hair with a knife. He had also attacked another girlfriend in a fit of rage and narrowly avoided causing her serious injury. At the time of the murders Jason was 24-years old and on probation for assault with a deadly weapon after he attacked his boss with a kitchen knife. The crime scene at Nicole’s home showed the manner of the murders to have been particularly ferocious. Nicole was practically decapitated and Ron was stabbed up to 22 times in a prolonged fight with his attacker. Police described the murders as rage killings.
- The weapon
Jason Simpson was a chef and as such had access to an assortment of knives (one expert says that the murderer used two different knives during the attack). He was familiar with knives and his past actions show they were his weapon of choice for violence. Jason’s diary entries also show him to have been obsessed with violence as well as knives, in addition to having an unhealthy obsession with his ex-stepmom. One entry reads; “It’s the year of the knife for me. I cut away my problems with a knife.”
- The motive
Nicole was due to have dinner with her family on the night of her murder, along with her parents, at the Beverly Hills restaurant where Jason was a chef. He had put a lot of planning into it, bought the food, and was looking forward to showcasing his talents. He had long struggled to step out from under his father’s shadow, having failed in the football scholarship OJ had arranged for him and, in cooking, Jason had finally found something that he was good at. However Nicole changed her plans at the last minute and dined elsewhere, leaving Jason feeling “snubbed” and “humiliated”. Now that might not be a motive for murder for a person of sound, reasonable mind—but a violent person with a diagnosed rage disorder who was off his meds at the time? That scenario could be a trigger.
- The alibi
Jason’s alibi for the time of the murders was that he was cooking at the restaurant where he worked in an open kitchen. There is however a period of time during the murder window when Jason was by himself and doesn’t have an alibi that can be supported by anyone else (colleagues claimed in fact that he had closed the kitchen early). Plus the punch out time recorded on his time card that evening was handwritten—despite the fact that the automatic electronic time card clock had been working just fine.
- The hat
There was a black navy ‘watch cap’ found at the crime scene which contained animal hair and hair fibers that did not match OJ. Photographs of Jason taken a year before the murders show him sitting with a dog wearing an identical watch cap to the one found at the scene. His DNA was never tested for a match though.
- The cover up
The day after the murders, before he was arrested, OJ had hired a top criminal attorney named Carl Jones to represent Jason. Why would he do that when Jason hadn’t even been spoken to by LAPD and he wasn’t even considered to be a suspect? After the infamous slow speed police chase where OJ finally ended-up back at his house on Rockingham, Jason rushed at the Bronco and was seen shouting and gesticulating at his father and Al Cowlings (who had been driving the car) before being pulled back by police. What was he so desperate to communicate to his father?
- The questionable evidence against OJ
There was blood and skin found under Nicole’s fingernails and also drops of blood discovered on her back that did not match OJ’s DNA.
There were 15 separate unidentified fingerprints at the crime scene that did not belong to OJ.
Ron Goldman was a 3rd degree black belt in karate and he fought for his life as is evidenced by defensive wounds on his bruised and swollen hands. However, OJ was voluntarily stripped at the LAPD and there were no marks or bruises anywhere on his face or body to indicate he had been in any kind of altercation. The day after his arrest Simpson’s hands, which had several cuts to them, were examined by Dr. Robert Huizenga, on behalf of the LAPD, but he determined the wounds had occurred at least “four of five days” prior to the date of the murders.
Whilst OJ had a history of domestic abuse, none of his prior incidents had ever escalated to the level where he had used weapons. In fact it was well known that he hated the sight of blood. His previous fights with Nicole had been the subject of complaints as they were loud, noisy, screaming affairs. Is it really believable that one night he suddenly suffered an immense rage way bigger than any before, one that led him to commit two gruesome and violent murders, and yet during the whole attack he remained silent, not screaming his lungs out as per his previous M.O., despite a lengthy fight with Ron Goldman?
So there you have it, undoubtedly millions of people are totally set in their belief that OJ was the sole perpetrator and refuse to challenge their deep set belief that he was 100 percent guilty, no matter what. However, Dear would seem to present a pretty strong case that it was in fact Jason Simpson who actually could have carried out the murders. Yes, OJ was at the scene, there’s no disputing that, as evidence definitely backs it up (but was he called in a panic by his son?) However, being present at a murder scene does not necessarily mean that you’re actually a murderer.
Being a hugely unlikeable character, with psychopathic tendencies, unbelievable arrogance and a history of violence doesn’t mean it’s a slam dunk for murder—If Jason had been even considered as a possible suspect by investigators then it seems highly there could have been enough reasonable doubt introduced to make people question OJ’s role in the slayings.
But one question keeps nagging, if he didn’t do it then why was OJ there, and why did he lead cops on the crazy Bronco ride? Was it to buy some time for Jason to get his story straight and affairs in order? Why would OJ go to trial for a crime he didn’t commit and risk life in imprisonment? Well, ask yourself, who would you risk your freedom and your life for? Who would you go to any length to protect? Your son maybe? Also, knowing he didn’t actually commit the murders, combined with his indisputable arrogance, might have led OJ to believe he would never be found guilty of a crime he never actually committed.
Hate away trolls, feel free to, if you have some spare time before your mom lets you out of the basement, but before you do, forget about the “details’ that were presented during the trial-by-media that occurred, and your ingrained belief that there’s no way OJ DIDN’T commit the crimes. Instead, open up your mind to the possibility that the truth may actually be stranger than fiction.
Question things for once, and do your own research and thinking instead of relying on popular opinion and the narrative of the “National Enquirer”—which by the way, published a slew of factually incorrect stories and blatant lies throughout the trial and ensuing media circus, which eventually became “facts” to members of the public, despite many of the tabloid’s paid-for claims never being raised at trial or confirmed by the LAPD.