OJ Simpson Dead at 76

Forgive me for not feeling sad about the death of a murderer.

This man was a very good player of American Football (specifically, a very good running back), but his personality was messed up. And yes, I think that he did murder (there are some people that still think that OJ Simpson was innocent and that he never murdered anybody). You could argue that the justice system messed up, when it gave a verdict of 'not guilty' for OJ Simpson. I hope his parents and siblings (if he had any siblings) are good people...because sometimes, bad parents pass on their bad behaviour to their children. If his parents and siblings are good people, then I feel sorry for them anyway, because regardless of the bad things OJ Simpson did...it can be very sad for a mum or dad or brother or sister to lose a relative. You could argue that OJ Simpson deserved the prostate cancer...because he did bad stuff. It is like karma biting him back in the ass. I do not hold any hatred towards OJ Simpson, because he is still a human being...even though he did do bad stuff in his life. If God exists, then God will be judging him...so it does not really matter what I think about OJ Simpson's life...because God will be the ultimate judge and God can correctly sort out what happens to OJ Simpson in the afterlife. I doubt that OJ Simpson came out of the womb as a bad person, so something in his life made him do bad things...or maybe he was already bad from very early childhood onwards...maybe he was a psychopath or a sociopath as a child...I am not his personal Psychologist or Psychiatrist, so I obviously do not know what the mind of OJ Simpson was like. He should not have done the bad things he did, but he did them anyway. He seemed smug about getting away with doing bad things. Well, I wonder what God will do with OJ Simpson now...if God exists.

He really kept the matter concealed and a secret, although I did hear about a possible cancer diagnosis. I can remember his case being one of the factors that got me really serious about school again.

'No indication of foul play' in death of 1923 actor Cole Brings Plenty, authorities say

A year and a half from now:

"Superior Court of Nevada County of Clark. In the matter of The People of the State of Nevada vs Prostate Cancer. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Prostate Cancer not guilty of the crime of murder, in violation of NRS Section 200.030(a) a felony upon Orenthal James Simpson, a human being, as charged in count one of the information."

Wowzers, such a weird thread. Yeah OJ is Dead.

I've no sympathy for OJ himself, he sure had none for his ex-wife and her friend/lover when he murdered them. Condolences to his family though.

Let God sort him out!

@referee: Read that in Duke's voice!! Nice!!

Ha Ha, I felt a little more sincere, but that's funny!

Is there actual proof that OJ Simpson committed murder? I haven't looked too far into the case.

Yeah the evidence was pretty obvious in the case against him. Hopefully the Brown Simpson families have some closure now.

He literally wrote a book basically confirming that he did do it

@makeorbreakit said:

Was he arrested for killing people?

No one cares about him.

@officialtopg said:

Yes, there was DNA evidence all over the crime scene and it should have been an open and shut criminal court case. Additionally, he wrote a book after the fact called "If I Did It" where he talked about "hypothetically" committing the murder (and not in an abstract way, in a way that directly mirrors the facts of the actual case), had a history of abusing and stalking his ex-wife, and was also found guilty in a civil court and forced to pay 33 million in compensation to the victim's families (albeit civil cases typically have a lower burden of proof).

However, numerous factors led to his acquittal in the criminal case:

• The DNA evidence was too dry and technical for the jury, and wasn't fully understood/accepted at the time.
• Several failures of procedure in collecting said DNA evidence by the LAPD allowed the defence to make it seem unreliable.
• Because of the political state of affairs (the LA riots of 1992 still fresh in people's minds), there was a majority non-white jury, as it was worried there would be more riots if an all-white jury found a black man guilty.
• This allowed the defence to run narratives to the jury about systemic injustice and make it seem like OJ was being framed.
• Neither of the above was helped by one of the policemen who found a key piece of evidence having a history of racism, and, I believe, planting evidence.
• The key piece of evidence in question was a glove which the prosecution asked OJ to try on in court. It didn't fit, as it was leather and the blood from the murder likely made it shrink, which was optically great for the defence and terrible for the prosecution.
• Just generally speaking, the prosecution was absolutely woeful at their jobs, and committed many blunders during the trial.

All of this allowed the defence to obfuscate and play on the proof standard - "beyond reasonable doubt" - being so high. We can see this with the fact that he was found guilty in the civil case. But even the criminal court proof standard should have been met with a more competent prosecution and less political tension.

This.

@cj_the_dj: Thank you for the information! I appreciate it. This definitely changes my viewpoint.

@officialtopg said:

You're welcome.

🙏 RIP, legend

You were one of the few people who proved to America how flawed the "Justice" system really is.

Also, LA and California suck even today. Those progressive chumps.

If his case happened in a Red state, oh boy would he be still in jail.

Just to add to this, OJ had another glove on while he tried to put on the murder glove so off course there was going to be some resistance. He also had arthritis. None of this was considered and he was still let go. What a joke of a legal system

@makeorbreakit:

Just to add to this, OJ had another glove on while he tried to put on the murder glove so off course there was going to be some resistance. He also had arthritis. None of this was considered and he was still let go. What a joke of a legal system

Yeah, these are both relevant facts that I'm familiar with. I didn't include them, because I didn't wish to make my post too long, but they also heavily call into question the "glove didn't fit OJ" argument.

@majorbokuta said:

That's because red and southern states have a history of discriminating against black defendants with a much higher false conviction rate and 3 year longer sentence.

I AM NOT SAYING OJ IS INNOCENT. He definitely did commit the murder

But praising flaws just because they'd help out once doesn't make sense.

Everything I hear about the glove doesn't fit debacle I instantly think of that episode of Seinfeld referencing it.

@steve40l: I agree that there have been cases of black defendants being treated unfairly in red states.

I was not praising this flaw, I was praising the fact that the red states would NEVER go out of their way to get more "non white" jury members just because they were "worried there would be more riots if an all-white jury found a black man guilty."

To me, the fact that the prosecutors even considered that this case was gonna be about race is ridiculous. I know that there have been cases and reports of white people judging non white people and being biased against them but that is not a good enough reason to form a jury based on race. Their thinking is were 2 dimensional and basically this: non white people will sympathize with OJ. And guess what, it worked for OJ! But that does not mean it was fair. If a whiter jury found him guilty, it still wouldn't prove anything.

My opinion is based on the racist thinking of California prosecutors and their judicial system. Red states are much more open minded and less racist than Cal state based on this. They are simply put, fair and just.

Curious, why are you so confident that all of this information is true? This looks like a list of items that the prosecution presented in support of their case.

@dshipp17:

Either way, the prosecution was abysmal during the trial, which made it easier for OJ's defense team to outclass them and win. It all comes down to what can be proven in a court of law at the end of the day.

Not saying that OJ was innocent (not that I care, because my indifference toward that guy has nothing to do with him allegedly killing his Nicole Brown), but the prosecution couldn't prove otherwise...

"Either way, the prosecution was abysmal during the trial, which made it easier for OJ's defense team to outclass them and win. It all comes down to what can be proven in a court of law at the end of the day."

This is actually something that (this perception of how things operate that people have and keeps getting spread around) I detest, after having experienced a court of law in the US (e.g. in the civil context and employment discrimination); this impression of the court system should really stop getting air; this statement really has to be derived from inexperience (e.g. do you take a so called 98% win/loss rate for the prosecution or for the company/government agency that seriously?); heading in, I once saw things this way too, but it was back when I was deciding what career path I wanted to pursue, while in school; it would really help if the media sought out people like me who've faced employment discrimination but couldn't avoid an attorney got oxygen and the mic so that we could tell our stories and describe how court in the US really operates, based on our experiences, as it really doesn't help anything at all for someone in school like this to keep describing what it means to be in court.

Court isn't objective in that way, at all, even though I look to avoid stereotyping as much as possible; there might be some decency somewhere, but the corruption is too widespread; the only thing that really helped OJ was his celebrity status and wealth, and this comment is entirely derived from experience. Here, what I'm trying to do is start a discussion so that I can have an opportunity to impart some experience over to you (and reader) about the court system in the US.

"Not saying that OJ was innocent (not that I care, because my indifference toward that guy has nothing to do with him allegedly killing his Nicole Brown), but the prosecution couldn't prove otherwise..."

I think that the likelihood is that he was guilty, but he didn't get exonerated because of a functioning examination of the evidence by a neutral/objective decider based solely upon the available information and evidence, as the impression goes.