Let’s talk about OJ Simpson’s trial!
The world was forever shocked when the horrific murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman took place in June 1994. They were brutally murdered outside the front door of her Los Angeles condo, while Nicole’s kids were sleeping upstairs.
The horrific details of the crime scene captured the public’s interest. The case became a media spectacle, combining court cases with Hollywood-style drama, after OJ Simpson, a celebrity and sports star, was arrested.
This courtroom drama, known as the “Trial of the Century,” addressed questions of justice, fame, privilege, and race in the United States. The broadcast proceedings, which included well-known attorneys, such as Robert Kardashian, contentious evidence, and unexpected turns, drew millions of viewers every day. The decision caused a rift in public opinion and had a long-lasting effect on the country’s perceptions of its media culture and legal system.
Was the sports star guilty?
This is still one of the most controversial questions. In 1995, he was found not guilty of the crimes, despite evidence like DNA tying him to the crime scene. His lawyers argued that the police mishandled evidence and were biased. And they succeeded.
However, two years later, a civil court found him responsible for their deaths and ordered him to pay damages. The world was divided in two: some people think he got away with murder, while others believe OJ Simpon’s trial showed flaws in the legal system.
Even though the sports star is no longer with us (he died on 10th April 2024), some things are still a mystery. Let’s go back to OJ Simpon’s trial for a bit today because some things just don’t add up. Take a look and see for yourself!
1. The low-speed Bronco chase
One of the first things that stunned the nation was the low-speed chase on June 17th, 1994. Instead of going to the police, the sports star was a passenger in a white Ford Bronco driven by Al Cowlings, one of his dear friends.
The police pursued the automobile for more than an hour, while millions of people watched the chase live on TV. Even though Simpson said he wasn’t guilty, his actions didn’t support his statement.
According to the officials, he carried a disguise, a gun, and cash, leading many to wonder if he was going to disappear. But his defense quickly said he was shocked by the recent events and was contemplating suicide. Yet again, people were divided, asking whether his actions reflected fear of public perception or guilt.
2. What about the blood evidence?
While the public seemed confused, detectives and police officials collected blood samples from the crime scene, OJ Simpson’s home, and his car, and all of them matched the star’s DNA.
Even though some investigators said it was a match probability of 1 in 57 billion, the defense argued that the sports player was framed by racist officers. People started to question this statement when they discovered photos of incorrectly sealed bags and vials.
Things got even more complicated: the prosecution said that the sheer amount of evidence couldn’t be fabricated, but the defense’s story of tampering cast doubt on the jury. This prompted the debate of whether the DNA was convincing evidence of guilt or if it was invalidated due to procedural errors.
3. Did the bloody glove fit or not?
Another one of the moments that was highly controversial was when OJ Simpson tried on the bloody gloves, and they seemed to be too small. The defense was quick to say that the evidence proved he wasn’t the killer.
Later on, Prosecutor Christopher Darden mentioned that it was a mistake to ask the sports star to try the gloves on, as they probably shrunk due to being soaked in blood and frozen for evidence preservation.
But that’s not all. Some critics complained that Simpson seemed to manipulate the fitting, spreading his fingers more than needed. That was the moment the phrase “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” became iconic, but several people had doubts about its fairness.
4. Nicole’s history of abuse reports
If you were familiar with OJ Simpsons and Nicole Brown’s marriage, you probably know that the woman complained many times about being abused in her marriage. She spoke about violent incidents, including one where the husband threatened to kill her.
While there were multiple 911 recordings where Nicole seemed terrified, the incidents weren’t included in the trial. The defense dismissed them, saying that Simpson’s past behavior didn’t mean he was capable of killing his significant other.
However, the jury received several criticisms for not paying more attention to Nicole’s history of abuse reports, as it stressed a pattern of control and violence. What are your thoughts? Leave a comment below and join the conversation!
5. The mysterious bag
According to different sources, OJ Simpson was carrying a garment back at the airport the night of the murders. The contents were never examined, and the bag remained a mystery. Robert Kardashian, one of his closest friends, was surprised by paparazzi leaving the house with the bag, but it disappeared almost immediately afterward.
Even though prosecutors suspected the bag contained the murder weapon of the bloody clothes, they couldn’t prove anything with the actual bag. The defense said there were only speculations, so they quickly dismissed the theory.
The mysterious bag raised many conspiracy theories, suggesting that it was destroyed before it could be used against OJ Simpson. Do you agree? This is still one of America’s biggest enigmas.
6. The jury’s quick verdict
The trial lasted around eight months and had over 100 witnesses and mountains of evidence, but the jury needed only four hours to acquit Simpson. Critics complained that the trial carried a lot of weight and the verdict shouldn’t have come as quickly as it did.
But here’s the thing that shocked the world even more. Later on, some jurors admitted they were strongly influenced by racial tensions and distrust of the LAPD rather than the evidence itself. Others believed the prosecution couldn’t prove OJ Simpson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The quick verdict left many of us thinking whether it was only a reflection of careful deliberation or a rushed decision caused by external pressure and strong emotions. Where do you stand on this one?
7. The civil trial contradiction
Even though the 1995 trial found OJ Simpson not guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, things changed with the 1997 civil jury. This found the former sports player liable for the wrongful deaths, awarding their families $33.5 million.
Unlike the 1995 criminal trial, the civil case only needed a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet again, this case implying OJ Simpson raised questions about the differing standards of justice. People started asking how could one jury say he was innocent, while others were completely certain of his guilt.
What do you think about this entire case? Do you believe the former sports star was guilty of killing his ex-wife and her friend or do you believe he was framed due to racial reasons? Let’s chat in the comments below.
As you probably know, OJ Simpson said throughout his life that he didn’t commit any murder, but he did write a book. So, if you want to understand his point of view and story, check it out here! Until next time, here’s another post you don’t want to miss: 9 Weird Things That Prove the Kennedy Family Is Cursed!
12 Responses
the trial of the century only proved justice really is blind!
Simpson killed his wife and got away with it. Have thought about this for years he may have been joking but I do believe he admitted it yrs later but can’t change a man twice for same murder.
Simpson was guilty. The evidence not allowed was outrageous, but the evidence allowed was sufficient enough to warrant a verdict of guilty as charged. Another proof of Simpson’s guilt is the fact that the police and private investigators (including OJ himself) stopped all investigations to hunt down the murderer. The answer to that is obvious: Only OJ Simpson committed the murder his wife Nicole and Mr. Ronald Goldman. Even in the court of public opinion there was no surprise or shock that the investigation was ended. Why? Because we all knew it was OJ Simpson who committed these murders.
He’s dead. Let them all rest in peace
I am happy I was never chosen as a juror in a trial. A trial is supposed to be about justice and the truth. But there are times when legal games played by lawyers overshadow the truth. Winning becomes the goal. I think that Simpson’s history of abusiveness toward his wife, and all of his actions after the murders are strong indicators of his capability and culpability. The glove display was marred by the fact that he was wearing plastic gloves when he tried to fit the evidence on his hands. HE DID IT
Beyond any doubt and speculation O.J. not guilty. Thanks to Mark Fuhrman, his covert racism led to O.J.’s innocence! The dirty bloody glove man!
I believe 100% that he murdered Nicole and Ron. I also think, and this is just my opinion, that the jury was either forced, bullied, or manipulated in making the decision they did.
It will always be a miscarriage of justice. A murderer got away with murder.
The Jury feared the Backlash is OJ was found Guilty. La would burn…..as would other cities
I always thought that he should not have been allowed to stage the glove fitting. To me that was a form of testimony. He should have been required to take the witness seat. At that point he could have been cross examined by the prosecution. The jury was politely intimidated into voting not guilty. This case was 1 year after Rodney King. The city was terrified of more race riots. I remember the National Court had already been deployed and were on the streets around the courthouse. He got away with a double murder in my opinion. DNA does not lie.
I watched the trial on TV. The cross exam of Mark Furman, the presence of EDTA (a lab preservative) in the blood evidence, and the glove fiasco obviously tainted the jury to believe the LAPD framed OJ. Yet, the overwhelming mountain of evidence, presented by numerous, disparate sources should have been dispositive of his guilt. In other words: the LAPD tried to frame a guilty man (as they no doubt had done to many an innocent man before) and it backfired, affording the jury (somewhat) reasonable doubt.