Please remember that Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, in an interview in Look magazine, admitted to murdering Emmett Till. Because of the protections against double jeopardy, neither man could be tried again.
2
There were several reasons why the prosecution of this case failed. The makeup of the jury, the naivety of Christopher Darden, the irresponsible behavior of Marsha Clark (allowing Darden to use the gloves!) and ignoring the rumors about Furhman, etc., etc., etc. But, one question that has never been adequately answered is: Why wasn't Al Cowlings vigorously questioned and jailed for aiding? I firmly believe OJ would have confessed to Cowlings. They should have been very tough on Cowlings!
Marsha did not "allow" Darden to use he gloves--she told him not to, and he did it anyway.
4
To answer the question in the headline: Any photo of OJ is utterly and completely gross and disgusting and makes it impossible to eat my dinner Thanks.
1
Christopher Darden explained "Charlie" on TMZ today saying, that it's O.J.'s excuse, pawning off a lot of conversation and snippits of action to remove the total burden of every single moment belonging to Simpson. It's an imaginary person. Simpson confessed during this interview (cue the creepy laugh) and I sincerely hope he cannot make one dime off any of these interviews, future books or shows, allowing the Goldman's to continue collecting their civil win till the day O.J. is finally removed from this world (yay).
1
Although I know I will come in for a great deal of opprobrium, I must respectfully disagree with everyone here: I am not convinced that he is guilty, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, as a formerly battered man (in a relationship in which I never once struck my wife back), I believe that what he meant when he said that they never looked very far into "her," and that "she started it," is the double standard that applies to domestic violence: when a woman hits a man (or throws something at him, etc.) - even as the "instigator" - we use euphemisms like "she's just getting emotional." Yet when a man strikes a woman - even if it is self-defense - it is automatically labeled "domestic violence." The reality is that the ACTUAL domestic violence in their relationship probably went both ways: yet only HE is called an "abuser." And no, their relative sizes and strengths do NOT matter, because a woman can do just as much damage with, say, an ashtray in her hand as a man can do with his fist.
I am not, in any way, excusing domestic violence against women. But I am sick and tired of the double standard; the assumption that "all" domestic violence is against women (some peer-reviewed studies show that it is much closer to equal - but that the stigma of men reporting it is extremely strong): and the failure of the justice system, as Mr. Simpson suggests, to look into a WOMAN's background as quickly and deeply as they look into a man's.
I did not watch this. I didn't know it was on. I would rather see current interviews of the jurors that acquitted Simpson.
4
Those are in the documentary, Made In America. And they are very frustrating to watch.
Any intelligent, well informed person who watched this trial and saw the blood and DNA evidence, etc. know that this guy killed two innocent young people.
In true sociopathic fashion, Simpson "thumbs his nose" at all of us, remorseless, even gleeful, at what he has pulled off. A kind of cat and mouse game that many murderers delight in playing. (He knows we know he is guilty and he doesn't care.)
Throughout the interview he is playing the role of "great guy"" and portraying his victim as provocateur. How pathetic to need to silence Nicole's voice and exert his control over her even as she lies dead and voiceless in her grave.
7
Ron Goldman was murdered, too. People seem to forget about him.
3
He was found not guilty, my opinion, to prevent another Los Angeles Rodney King riot. Black people believed he was innocent, white people believed he was guilty. O.J. Simpson did it! If the glove doesn't fit, you must not convict, something like that. That glove was so shrunken from the blood and O.J. was wearing latex gloves as he tried to squeeze his hand into it, really? Anybody knows, you get your leather gardening gloves wet, they will shrink, do it often, they get ruined. He has absolute motive. Never mind the cap and clothes that had blood evidence. What difference does it make about one show versus another. its TV and designed to make money, either directly or indirectly. And as for people and their programming choices, is one really better than another?
6
Black people did not think he was innocent. They knew he did it, but they also knew of the LAPD's terrible corruption and harm to communities of color. To many of them, the failure of the state -- and of the evidence developed by LAPD -- to bring about a guilty verdict was fair payback.
4
Most black people I know did not think O.J. was innocent. But, sad as it may sound most were glad he was found not guilty. I can give you a million and one reasons why they felt that way, but very few thought he was innocent.
2
Any luck on finding the "real" killer, Juice?
Hint: Look in the mirror.
5
The Juice really aged.
3
The only reason this whole disgusting exercise was done is the usual reason, money, money and more money. Every media outlet that touched it did so for and expected to make money from it, period.
3
This pathetic and tiresome horse has been let out to pasture. The jury found Mr. Simpson NOT GUILTY... why, oh, why is this 12 year old "Lost Confession"being dragged out? Please stop.
O.J. was acquitted, not the same as "not guilty."
5
When you are acquitted you are literally found "not guilty"
1
He was found guilty in a subsequent civil trial.
2
I think the testament to the man is what happened to him after this interview and the original verdict. A civil court found him responsible for the murders and came back with a substantive judgement, that wasn't overturned on appeal. He ended up in jail for committing a violent felony in trying to get back sports memorabilia he claimed had been taken, it all paints a picture of what kind of peerson he was and is.
The sad part is that the original verdict and its roots are still very much an issue today, due to widespread fear of the police in minority communities (and sadly, not without cause, the last 12 years have shown plenty of evidence why) a jury was willing to suspend disbelief and find a man innocent where so much evidence was there to show guilt, because they believed this was nothing more than white america out to get a black celebrity, I think that is the really sad part of this whole thing, that nothing has changed and likely has gotten worse.
2
I can't think of any policeman in the US who has beheaded anyone, much less an innocent, non threatening person. Why police shoot, it is to protect their own life or someone else's.
2
Contrary to many comments here I think this is a positive because it is on FOX. I don't consider FOX fans to engaged in conversations regarding domestic violence. FOX airing information on a domestic violence hotline reaches a different demographic then the usual progressives. Maybe a few of these folks will rethink this issue.
I do wonder though, if the perpetrator was white, would this be getting so much attention?
I worked as a shelter manger with batter women and their children in Philadelphia PA, Called Women Against Abuse for 18 years. I am also a formally battered women. I always though OJ was guilty even though he was found not. This special show that aired last evening did not shock me in the least bit. It was just the icing on the cake to me, I never realized just how demented he truly is, That disgusting laugh of his. My heart morns for the people killed and their family's. I don't think in this case color had anything to do with it. OJ was loved my many people including whites.
9
Many believed and still believe he is guilty. Being found 'not guilty' has a lot to do with how evidence is perceived, how evidence is presented, and especially -- how public sentiment at the time perceived him, which includes the jury. Some people literally could not 'conceive' of O.J.'s guilt. I believe now and always believed he was guilty.
2
Had he been anyone other than an attractive, famous, wealthy AA . . . Only in America.
4
Not guilty. The jury has spoken.
The civil case came to a different conclusion.
6
It was this trial that convinced me it was time to consider professional juries. Since then, I have been called four times to serve and my opinion hasn't changed.
2
This is the case that broke my trust in the US court system. Jury of your peers is not supposed to mean jury of your fans. There was no racial motivation in the murders — no evidence that race had anything to do with the victims being targeted — yet the entire trial was about race. And about O.J. It was a disgusting sham.
5
I wish the show had focused what what the OJ murders were all really about. It was the very first case of jury invalidation in the history of USA jurisprudence. Those of us who lived through the horrors of the trial knew OJ was guilty and horrified at the outcome. How was it done? The gloves.
I am a gardener and I posses many pairs of leather gardening gloves. All my gardening leather gloves get very stif after they had had time to dry up from a very tiring and sweaty gardening session, and my gloves will never fit next time I want to use them. I need to sit there for several minutes softening and stretching them to get them to fit again. Every gardener in the world knows that, and I suspect, so did the OJ lawyers at the time.
Please, tell the real scandal of the OJ trial jury neutralization, we all already know he did it. Focus on the gloves if you’d like to find out how the jury was exactly neutralized. If you need someone to demonstrate it, I can help you for free.
11
All these years later white people have to believe he did it. Well the only thing that was proven from that trial was the complete stupidity,racism of the police department,the judge and everyone associated with the prosecution. Racism of the police department was viewed up close. The racism of the the two wronged families up close and in every minorities face daily.
There are many minorities serving time for crimes they did not commit but people like you based on flawed evidence become jury, judge and hangman.God only knows what happned that night and for people to think they know is to be barking at the moon.
The light was turned on for people in regards to what domestic abuse looks like but there were powerful white men working in the white house and I didn't see Trumps right hand man upset about domestic abuse and he didn't do anything but defend the abusers So get the facts right its all about the skin color . you're still mad that OJ wasn't convicted get over it and do something good for victims of domestic abuse and leave judging people to God
3
CNN will do anything/everything to get ratings. And, to do an interview with OJSimpson was the lowest of the low. Why? Because time makes his murder less important? Less believable? Because you now have anchors who will do anything, say anything, interview anybody, just for ratings? Jeff Zucker is a sleazy, classless guy who brought CNN into the gutter. This and so much else of CNN is about sensationism, bad journalism, exploitive stories, and lots of untruths!
3
Uhh, this was on Fox and CNN had nothing to do with it. Donald, Baron and now Susan??? Really?!
6
Amen, Susan. And before this Zucker, who is indeed a foul man, destroyed what was once a stirling network in NBC. He single-handedly brought down their vaunted, classic Thursday night line-up and "Must See TV." Zucker brings toxicity and chaos and havoc to wherever he works, and leaves debris, rubble, cancer and poison. He should be banned from the sector altogether.
1
The show was on Fox, not CNN.
7
I had the displeasure of being mere feet from this murderer while on vacation, he was staying at the same hotel and he had his usual entourage including wannabe's hanging around him. Blond women wanting their pics taken with this beast. I left the area and went back to my room away from the chaos. It made me ill. funny part was they couldn't find a sun hut for him so he had to sit on a trash can (perfect spot for him) until they found space. His arrogance was evident.
7
O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of the two people. He's an educated guy and he understands double jeopardy protects him from and post verdict admissions of guilt. His "hypothetical" description along with his contradictory facial expressions while repeating the story tells any intelligent person that Simpson, did the crime, feels so strongly about it that he needed to confess, but still feels no remorse at all--that those killed were unlucky at best and deserved it at worse. He got away with murder, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it, now.
7
My heart continues to break for the victims’ families. I know that I will never be able to unsee the pain in Fred Goldman’s eyes - a father’s broken heart if ever there was one.
8
I did not watch the interview. However, I am not so certain that OJ actually was the murderer. At the criminal trial Dr. Henry Lee testified that "something is wrong here" with the forensic evidence. One possibility is, simply, tampering with the blood samples by LAPD. But another possibility is that OJ was on the scene, but so was someone else with similar DNA--namely, his son Jason. The Jason scenario has been presented publicly, but not take seriously by MSM. Of course I don't know what happened, but when you hear about Jason's mental instability, his anger at Nicole for not showing up at his restaurant that night, OJ's immediately hiring a lawyer for Jason, and so on, it sounds plausible to me. And of course OJ would cover up for his son, as most any parent would.
2
See the interview. The interviewer asks O.J. about the "hypothetical" story in O.J.'s book. O.J. No reasonable explanation to justify this "hypothetical" story is even presented. He repeats it. His facial expressions show great feelings, and neither regret nor sadness are amongst any of them.
1
The problem with that is DNA testing is very specific, and a son's DNA is significantly different from the fathers. Unless OJ had an identical twin brother, no relative would be confused with OJ. What this reminds me of if how little people listened to the expert testimony and how little most people know about DNA and genetics, it was like one member of the jury, when asked how they could vote for acquittal when OJ's dna was found at the crime scene, and they said "so what blood with his type was found at the crime scene? Millions of people have the same blood type" ( meanwhile, at trial, the experts tested that the odds of someone having the same DNA as OJ simpson was 7 billion to 1).
For those posters who said OJ was found innocent, he wasn't, he was acquitted. You don't find a defendant guilty or innocent, you find whether the preponderance of the evidence indicated guilt or not. Acquittal means the Jury didn't find there was enough evidence to convict him to meet that standard of criminal conviction. A civic jury, where the requirement is that the majority of the evidence shows the defendant at fault, said OJ did it.
8
Agreed, Jason's DNA is different from OJ's. But the Jason theory posits that OJ also was on the scene and maybe even tried to stop him, so the blood of both could be present. Henry Lee implied that the DNA evidence was confusing, perhaps contaminated, and inconclusive--mixing of blood could account for this.
Fox News would put a body cam on a school shooter and call it a documentary about gun violence.
8
I was surprised to see Soledad O'Brian here. Not sure if her presence gave credibility to the program or the program stripped her of any credibility she may have had as a journalist.
7
Imagine for a moment the last time you participated in a hypothetical discussion. It did not sound like this. But alas, who cares? It's not like there is anyone left on the planet who doesn't know OJ Simpson murdered two people and got away with it. Let's focus on the fact that we have an illegitimate, fraudulently elected person currently pretending to be the President of the United States and not spend another minute thinking about a murderer who never paid for his crimes.
9
He won. Get over it and move on to how to defeat him next time.
omg. Who wants so play footsie with a double murderer?
Pathetic.
5
If he cared even a little bit about his children, he'd stop doing these kind of interviews. Isn't it enough that he murdered their mother and got away with it? Those poor kids (now adults). Surely this is the last thing they need in their life.
6
Didn't see it.
And don't see any value in pretending Ms Brown's and Mr Goldman's deaths are hypothetical.
I don't see any justice or justification in any of this media narcissism.
No more gawking.
10
Has it crossed anyone's mind that this sudden interest at Fox in O.j. Simpson is meant to draw attention away from Trump and "Stormy" ?
33
Typical Murdoch: go for the gutter.
10
Oh wow, Fox is shameless and disgusting. Who knew?
10
Gross. This murdering liar should receive no publicity ever.
11
I will admit to watching the news coverage of this back when it happened.
Every single night. and I also ask myself why did this fascinate me.
lots of different reasons.
He did it there is no doubt.
15
Until OJ suffers in some way for these murders he committed, there should be light shed on this monster.
11
There is not one shred of value in this story. Not one.
11
At the end of the day, it was a crime of passion.
With all due respect Mr. McCarty, at the end of the day, it was cold blooded murder. Labeling the murderer's actions as a crime of passion romanticizes the act in a justification sort of way.
61
Yes. What he did was a crime of hate filled insanity. The fact that Fox is dredging it up again is probably the same reasoning that Trump employs when he dials up crazy with regard to meetings with the likes of Kim Jong Un. Nobody is paying attention to Fox because they have been exposed for the frauds and liars they are. Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro are yammering and gibbering at the cheap seats only to realize that the bleachers are becoming less populated day by day.
7
Lying does have its difficulties.
4
I’ve always wondered if Simpson, or the jury that set Simpson free, ever considered how many black men you never heard of would likely be later convicted on slim or no evidence in other cases to “make up” for the miscarriage of justice in the Simpson case ? You know, like the “make up calls” by referees on the football field or basketball court that happen all the time.
5
There actually is an OJ effect, but this is not it. Prosecutors are much more reluctant to go to court in cases in which men are accused or murdering/abusing their partners without an airtight case, usually including eye witnesses.
6
I cannot believe I actually watched part of this interview. I also cannot believe I read part of this article. I want those minutes back.
8
The entire two hour interview was a constant reminder of how many lives were irrevocably destroyed and damaged. I highly doubt any minds were changed after viewing this program - either people still believe Mr. Simpson is innocent or they believe he committed the murders.
I have no idea why Nicole Simpson's friend, Eve Shakti Chen, was included in the panel, especially since after all of this time, she is still incredibly distraught, emotionally scarred and had such difficulty talking at all. I thought it was cruel, not gross nor gripping, to include her at all.
Other than Fox wanting to exploit and make money off of this tragedy and Mr. Simpson's "hypothetical" ramblings, I thought the entire program was in poor taste which simply dug up more painful memories and wounds.
12
What did you expect, integrity or ethics? It's Fox.
35
America, where segregation and the battle for civil rights was still killing people as the Apollo missions reached for the moon. Where people die by gun shot at a rate of 200 a week and health care is a unaffordable luxury to half your population, now has to debate if OJ being coy about if he committed murder or not is “gross”. America where the dollar is god, appears to have no bottom to its moral character.
49
I refuse to give this criminal any more of my time. I won't watch this nor any other film about him.
30
For the life of me, I cannot understand what makes our nation so hungry for bad celebrities. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of murderers, thieves and rapists who are either minimally or not at all punished for the crimes they commit and the worlds of the families of victims destroyed. We should not celebrate any of them by giving them "star" status, tarnished as those stars might be. Let us remember that Trump was hardly known at all until he started making national news with his Obama Birther push. He then became a national icon through the media covering his outrageous showmanship. It continues, although many writers seem to approach him as an actual president. In fact, he is a poseur who is destroying our country. O.J. is merely an old man who pretends he is "upper class", a brass ring he has reached for all his life. Perhaps in this sense, OJ & DJ have a lot in common.
So do I think this discovery of a buried interview is newsworthy? Not so much. Those of us that all along thought he did it will think so until our demise. Those who would defend him (are there any?), will surely hold their loyalty til the end as well.
6
Um, Trump was a celebrity/icon in the 1980s, way before the birther "controversy".
You can try to lump him in with the monster that is OJ, but it just doesn't work.
3
I was speaking nationally, not regionally or listeners of Howard Stern. I doubt many people even knew he had anything to do with the Miss Universe pageant...and most people in the US don't stay in Trump hotels.
2
Everybody knows he killed her and Ron Goldman by slashing their throats in a rage. We also know a civil jury found him liable; although his criminal jury acquitted him because his defense successfully played the race card.
The Fox interview was for its own ratings. Nothing more.
45
News organizations deal in facts, not "hypotheticals." Fox presents itself on par with real news gathering outlets, then presents garbage like this. No wonder it's not taken seriously. Fox is the National Enquirer of television.
15
I recall Murdoch (who owns Fox) paid Simpson a million dollars to write "If I did it" and then helped him hide the payoff from Simpson's creditors (the families of his victims). No blow is too low where Murdoch/Fox are concerned.
35
Rupert Murdoch, and his boys, raising the bar from Trump to OJ. Pretty much the same old except Trump's trial has not yet begun. Mike Pence is giddy with anticipation...
12
Only FOX would stoop this low.
16
Stay classy, Fox.
13
OK, it was on Fox, and everybody here hates Fox. But as I recall, several other networks, including CNN, CBS and NBC, ran specials to mark the 20th anniversary of the murder. It's not as if other networks haven't tried to capitalize on this crime. And although I'm far from obsessed with the subject matter - I wasn't even aware of this show until I heard a clip on the radio this morning - I found it pretty interesting, and worthy of airing, regardless of Fox's motives for doing so. This was a confession, no bones about it. If a suspected murderer confesses to a crime that caught the attention of, and remains of interest to a great number of Americans, why not release it?
16
This interview adds nothing concrete to the discussion. If it did it wouldn't have been sitting on the shelf all this time, it would have been very big news. Now it's just another tacky attempt to make money off a tragedy, something that is only possible because the alleged perpetrator is a celebrity whose name guarantees ratings.
28
I would say FOX and it's employees make billions off the blood and suffering of the world and does nothing more than bank it all. OJ killed a few. FOX slaughters thousands with it's psychotic world view and lies.
4
Broadcast by Fox network, no further comment necessary.
84
Precisely what I was thinking myself. I confess I have no interest in watching any "news" content from them.
8
Captivating "us" for nearly two decades? Really? Who's "us," exactly?
I can't imagine having a conversation about anything substantial or interesting with anyone who would go out of their way to watch this ghoulish freak show.
57
You were captivated enough to click on this article, read it, and leave a comment.
23
There is no “if” about it. Simpson did it. That was a huge miscarriage of justice, letting him get away with two murders because he and his lawyer charmed the jury.
I was practically tearing my hair out during his trial. It made me crazy that no one considered the behavior of the dog that was present during the murders. The dog reportedly did not bark during the assault (although I believe it was heard whining and vocalizing after the victims died). None of the neighbors reported any loud, aggressive alarm barking. That indicates to me that the dog — an Akita, if I recall correctly — knew and trusted the attacker. It’s co-owner, in other words: O.J. Simpson. Akitas are fiercely protective, strong dogs with big barks. A stranger would have met with resistance from such an animal.
95
I agree. I always thought he did it. I think the jury did too. But I think the verdict went far beyond their being "charmed." Black jurors wanted payback for all the obviously guilty white men who had been found "not guilty" by white jurors over the decades. And they got their payback. Understandable? Perfectly. Miscarriage of justice? Sure. But can you blame them? If you do, be sure to go back and blame all those white jurors over time.
16
Good point. My dogs would certainly have barked their little heads off. But there is an old saying that it is not who is guilty, but who has the best lawyer. I wonder how the jury feels today about their verdict.
6
If the TV specials I've seen are accurate, the prosecution stuffed a bunch of blacks into the jury to him get off. That's just as bad as stuffing a jury with whites to get a white off. OJ Simpson's trial exposes the worst of racial equality.
1
What else would you expect from the Fake News Network? Next month expect Hitler's Diary.
43
Steve,
Can't you spare a second to think that this is Fox broadcasting about domestic violence to an audience of Fox viewers and Trump admirers?
If you read the article, didn't you take a second to wonder about Fox broadcasting an ad for a domestic violence hotline with each commercial interruption?
Myself I'm very conscious of the very great harm that Fox has done to America over the past generation. As old man Murdoch, his latest trade-in trophy wife at his side, contemplates passing on the business to the next generation, doesn't it occur to you that this might mean change of some kind?
It seems to me congratulations to Fox might be in order.
9
At this point it is exploitation at its best (worst?). Because a court of law found him not guilty, does not mean he's innocent. The more interesting issue is public perception across racial lines. Also, the obsession regarding this case is not so widespread as this story would have you believe. Educating women about abusive behavior and its manifestations is perhaps the real value in dragging out this tired subject for another "airing".
8
When I saw the listing, thought it would be "gross." Actually, it was engrossing and totally spelled out what happened, so I'd say this was a step above merely exploitive, except for dragging out Nicole's friend and making her sit through the entire episode. That was awkward.
15