I was watching a T.V. show and they interviewed a doctor who had testified at the OJ Simpson trial. He mentioned that he thought a lot of evidence pointed to the probable presence of a second killer at the murder scene, an accomplice. No details were given.
Can anyone (briefly) explain this line of thought. Is anyone in particular widely believed to be the second killer? What are the main points of evidence that point to this conclusion, if any?
There was indications that someone cleaned up OJ’s house. They only missed a couple drops of blood in the entrance hall. The Bronco was unusually clean except for a couple drops of blood no bigger than a match head. The timeline was a big part of the case and OJ didn’t have time to cleanup. AL Cowlings is my pick for cleaning up after OJ.
It’s unlikely there was an accomplice at the crime scene because only one set of bloody footprints were found. They allegedly matched some rare Italian shoes that OJ owned.
I used to download the OJ transcripts and read them at night. It’s much quicker than listening to it live.
OJ’s son by his first marriage Jason was a strong contender, at first but he quickly fell out of favour. He had a history of knife violence, I recall and his alibi was pretty weak and co-workers contridicted him saying he wasn’t at work the night it happened. Co-workers also said he didn’t like Nicole, though there was never a real clear motive as to why he’d kill her.
Several jurors have stated “had the police done their job correctly they wouldn’t have voted for aquittal.”
Mark Fuhrman single handedly killed any chance of getting a conviction. People believed he was a racist. And the jury believed there was no degree of racism.
Just like with Lizzie Borden, the evidence was so botched, no one could know.
The cops failed royally by assuming it was a slam dunk. Especially after the car chase, they assumed he would confess and got sloppy.
Unless OJ admits it, it will go down like the Lizzie Borden case, no one will every truly be 100% sure.
The thing that is interesting is if OJ did it then he’s keeping his mouth shut totally. In most crimes, someone evenutally shoots their mouth off. This is what happened with Helen Brach. That was another fascinating case.
No one knows what happened to the candy heiress’s body but we know why she died. That was unusual as it was a true conspiracy and the parties involved kept their mouths shut for the longest time. But eventually somene committed a crime and copped a deal to save his own skin and brought the rest of them down.
Like the Borden case, if Lizzie did do it, then it’s fairly certain the maid, Bridgette knew more than she let on and kept her mouth shut long after Lizzie died, and she’d have no need to.
That’s not like people not to talk, unless something like their death shuts them up.
Not quite. Of course, the story OJ wrote is entirely fictional, right? Right? Anyone? Bueller?
Also - you have to love what the Goldman family did to the book after they seized it as part of their court settlement. The book is still called “If I Did It”, but note the teeny tiny “If”. And the big word “Killer”. And the name of the added commentary by the Goldmans. Ouch all around.
The prosecution tried to call two people at the trial to testify to this. One, Rosey Grier, was blocked from testifying because of clergy privilege. The other was dropped after she sold her story to a tabloid. Two other people wrote books about OJ confessing to them, and OJ himself gave a “hypothetical” in both his own book and in a magazine interview. He even tried to do a pay-per-view special before the negative publicity quashed that.
I am certain that OJ had help (he never could have cleaned up in the time allowed).
The mysterious bag (containg his bloody clothes?) was never forund.
Will OJ give a deathbed confession? Time will tell.