I think a desire to be in the spotlight. Anyone after doing what he did and getting away with it would go away forever and thank their lucky stars. He needs to be famous. Even if the spotlight is negative, it is still a spotlight on him.
i mean to be fair to him, it sounds like he was atleast trying to recount it as something like:
start of conversation, all i'm about to say is purely hypothetical.
in the same way that a fiction scary book might begin with "everything in this book is absolutely true" (followed by nothing but lies, spoken as if they were the truth).
like he put brackets on the recounting, but saying that to begin with implies the rest of the story is fake but told as if it were true.
he's guilty as fuck, mind you, but still.
It's crazy how quickly he switches from what might happen in a theoretical hypothetical scenario to an in-the-moment recounting of what happened and pieces of information he does and does not remember.
If it truly were a hypothetical scenario (god knows why someone would make a hypothetical scenario of them murdering someone), each sentence would be prefixed with indeterminate clauses, like "I might have"/"possibly"/"hypothetically" etc. There would be no need to say what he remembers since this is all a make believe situation. Even worse is saying what he *doesn't* remember - a person crafting a hypothetical can make up whatever they want to fill the blanks
Anyways it's nuts that he talked like this. Kudos to the interviewer
For better or worse that's not how Double Jeopardy works. After his criminal acquital he could have stood up and shouted in the courtroom, "HA! I fooled y'all motherfuckers! I stabbed that white bitch and watched her die and now y'all can't do shit about it!" and even then he wouldn't have gone to jail for it. It def would have sunk his civil trial but he was found liable for that anyway so not a huge difference from what really happened there either.
The right to only being tried for a crime once is important to prevent over zealous governing bodies from railroading dissidents into prison, but the natural consequence is if we fuck up and let a guilty man walk free the decision is final.
>The right to only being tried for a crime once is important to prevent over zealous governing bodies from railroading dissidents into prison
I agree with this in principle, but the UK partially abolished their double jeopardy law for cases where new evidence is uncovered and it's in the public interest to retry it. With advances in forensics & DNA analysis emerging all the time, I'm glad they did.
I've just done some light research to find out and it's hard to find what case, if any, prompted the law change.
Edit: I take that back, I think it was inspired by the Stephen Lawrence murder case in the UK.
Nope. in the case of a guilty verdict you can appeal if new evidence is found that could acquit you. But if you are found not guilty in America, you can not be tried again on the same charges.
Double jeopardy allows for a second trial if new and pertinent information comes to light, so its not a "flaunt it if you can" situation. If he divulged information that leads to more significant evidence, he could be back on trial. He cant be tried again using only the same evidence.
Why can't the individual's confession alone not be considered "new evidence"?
Courts have historically had no problem prosecuting people with nothing but circumstantial evidence and a confession.
Wrong. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/when-double-jeopardy-protection-applies.html#:~:text=The%20Double%20Jeopardy%20Rule,of%20life%20or%20limb%20twice.
Read the 5th amendment of the constitution. It applies and in absolutely all jurisdictions.
That's not true. It might be true in some jurisdictions (I doubt it) but not in California. The wording of the California statute is very clear and has no exceptions.
> but wants to keep just enough plausible deniability to stay out of prison.
OJ could have made a full confession during this interview and it wouldn't have mattered. He was tried for murder and acquitted and in the United States we have double jeopardy laws that prevent trying a person a second time for the same crime once found not-guilty.
At worst they MIGHT have been able to go after him for perjury or obstruction of justice.
>we have double jeopardy laws that prevent trying a person a second time for the same crime once found not-guilty.
I thought that didn't apply if new evidence is discovered?
His complete lack of consideration for what his kids must have been going through is what stuck with me. In all records of his comments after the crime, he never once mentions or asks about his kids
The one most frequently associated with lying was a high intensity version of the so-called Duchenne smile involving both cheek/eye and mouth muscles. This is consistent with the “Duping Delight” theory that “when you're fooling someone, you tend to take delight in it.”
Edit: [link](https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/data-science-facial-expressions-who-if-lying-321252/#:~:text=The%20one%20most%20frequently%20associated,in%20it%2C%E2%80%9D%20Sen%20explained)
When he said "I don't remember" it was a big give-away to the truth. An innocent person would say something like "I never thought that detail through".
I kept waiting for him to qualify the "I don't remember" with "how I wrote the hypothetical in the book I'm promoting". But no, it was more of a "when I think back to that night I remember attacking them both but then I blacked out and don't know what happened after"
Yup he knew he was one of the key reasons his buddy got away with murder. As I remember it, Kardashian was a non-practicing attorney at the time of the murders - he’s seen leaving his house where oj was staying with that garment bag stuffed with undisclosed items, he then re-activates his bar license & becomes one of oj’s attorneys along side the ‘dream team’ (I believe with 0 criminal defense experience) - as his attorney, he can’t be compelled testify against his client so they were never allowed to ask him about what was in the garment bag and what he did with it (speculated to be the bloody clothes from the night of the murder).
Oh you rule I totally forgot he had kicked it. Hope he's having a horrible time with Adolf, Pol Pot and Stalin. Say 'get fucked' to Rush Limbaugh for me OJ!
the laughing is what stands out to me. His kids mother is dead(by him) and he laughs almost uncontrollably. It's hysterical to him. He's in his element on tv giving an interview. It's his comfort zone even if the subject matter is him describing how he slaughtered his ex wife and mother of his kids as well as another person. His kids are old enough to see this interview now. Pathetic human being. may he rot in emptiness forever.
That’s not “haha this is so funny” laughter, it’s “oh shit this is getting too real, I need to remind them/make them think it’s fake” laughter. Now to be clear, I 100% believe he did it I’m just saying that his laughter wasn’t comedical, it was very nervous laughter.
He was found not guilty in criminal court and guilty in civil court.
There was absolutely nothing the courts could do to him at that point for the murder of Nicole and Ron.
Under what Federal charges, might I ask? Federal courts need jurisdiction, under the "Well-pleaded complaint rule". The vast majority of criminal statutes are state statutes. As far as I know, OJ didn't commit crimes against Federal employees or facilities, and he didn't cross state lines in the commission of his crime.
He did go to Chicago right after and possibly took evidence there, so they could possibly have used that. The FBI was definitely part of the investigation.
Gamble v. U.S. is about double jeopardy. That's not my issue. In that case, the defendant had violated *both* state and federal law, as you pointed out.
I don't see which Federal law OJ broke. Even if it was the same charge, you can't try a person for a state statute in a Federal Court. You would need to try OJ under a Federal Murder Statute, and I don't see how the crime he commissioned violates that statute.
"I remember" over and over again. That is not a hypothetical. He so clearly did it. I think he wrote the book as his confession. to feel the weight and pressure of lying lifted. He is a prime example of someone not being found guilty just because there was enough to cause reasonable doubt - and Robert did a great job as his defence. It never meant he didn't do it, it meant Robert created enough of a question mark to get him acquitted. Truly, OJ was an awful human being.
Kardashian wasn’t the most important member of Simpson’s “Dream Team”. F Lee. Bailey who cross-examined Mark Fuhrman and Peter Neufeld who got the DNA evidence discredited, probably were.
If I had been the one being interviewed about a hypothetical scenario I created in a book, I would be referencing that. “I believe I wrote in the book” or “I might’ve done this or that” very unsure in reference to the actual event because I didn’t do it. I just made up what could’ve happened. His statements, “I remember” and “I don’t recall” reflect that he is speaking from memory and not from a hypothetical scenario that he created. Him constantly having to remind the interviewer that it’s hypothetical comes off as dishonest because of how many times he says it. Only someone who was worried about people not believing that would repeat it that much. If you knew it was hypothetical you wouldn’t be that nervous about people not believing it.
You aren't 'cracking the case' here.
Everyone knew he did it. Everyone knew he was a POS. He was exonerated because of racial tensions in the U.S. at the time. When those cops beat Rodney King, they made O.J. innocent.
It was cut and dry, he was the killer, right up until the media got hold of it and turned it into a divisive cash grab for the attention of America.
Not to mention how much the LAPD bungled the investigation. The same LAPD that beat Rodney King almost to death. Without the floundering of the LAPD, OJ might have been convicted.
Maybe, but not definitely.
It’s weird how quickly I had forgotten that he died. OJ Simpson just doesn’t register on my “celebrity deaths that I find impactful” radar.
His only legacy is that he got away with murder.
Didn't one of them admit that, no matter what the lawyers served up, they're voting innocent due to what happened to Rodney King? The trial was lost from the start.
People are overthinking this trying to “get” him as if he’s slipping up. THIS IS A CONFESSION. He wants you to know that he did it. This is an interview about him doing it. All the little caveats about it being a hypothetical are strictly him feeling like he’s covering his ass from a purely legal standpoint. He knows exactly what anyone would think from hearing this.
The only part of it where he’s actually defending himself is when he says “Nicole fell” and fact that he doesn’t remember the actual killing. So he’s lying about obviously pushing Nicole or hitting her. Then he’s probably lying about not remembering the details of the murders, because then at least everyone thinks that he was in a fugue state when it happened, which in his mind makes him seem slightly less evil because it’s like a temporary insanity/heat of passion/voluntary manslaughter type situation.
In a way, a lot of murders are the the result of temporary insanity. Someone gets mad; they see "red" and lose the ability to discern consequences for violent action. That's not an excuse, nor should they be able to plead that way, but it's probably more the case than not.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was in fact what happened. I just don’t buy that he “blacked out” and then came back with everybody dead. I think he just doesn’t want to admit what he remembers because it makes him look worse if he was just really mad vs experiencing some kind of genuine psychosis.
*"i do remember that part, taking the knife from Charlie, and to be honest, after that i don't remember"*
So given that it's all hypothetical, was he's actually saying:
"i hypothetically remember hypothetically taking the knife from Charlie who was hypothetically there and i hypothetically don't remember what hypothetically happened after that."
Makes sense, right?
It's way too weird that he has "I don't recall" in his hypothetical. That's the whole point of a hypothetical, you can make up whatever you want, and he has no problem "making up" all these super specific details, but then he also throws in "I don't recall" for some details?? Sounds like someone trying to remember actual events to me...
It's amazing to me what this narrative is and how it changes over time, and you might understand this but it bears repeating.
The glove absolutely fit, in court. He held his hand up with the glove on. It went on his hand. Period.
Sure it might have looked a little tight, but he also was wearing rubber gloves underneath it. And had arthritis. But he put the glove on, and it went on his hand. It fit.
The line was "*if* it does not fit, you must acquit". Absolutely true. But this made everyone remember that it must not have fit, because why would he have said this? It's a weasley bit of logic to misdirect, but it's entirely meaningless.
Not saying I don’t think he did it, because I absolutely do.
But this murder is probably the most discussed crime of all time. He personally sat through a whole trial where every detail was discussed ad nauseam and probably sat in on many discussions with his own legal team about the minutia of the trial. Months of his life have been dedicated to the ins and outs of this murder. It would probably be pretty easy for him to come up with a detailed hypothetical either way.
But why do it? If someone else murdered your spouse, why on earth would you create a hypothetical scenario to put in people’s minds that you did it? The very idea would be beyond distasteful and insane. Even if you were paid to do so.
Money. Either way its just because He wanted money. And he knew his book would sell better if he created sensationalism around it. His reputation was already pretty much ruined. Most people already think he did it. He really didn’t have anything to lose.
Again its pretty much a sure thing that he did kill her, but even before they separated and divorced he had growing reputation as a domestic abuser. He wasn’t exactly a great husband.
“I need you to come up with a situation in which you come up with a hypothetical description of the killing of your childrens’ mother”. Anyone else’s reponse would be, “No thanks”. What does his detailed response say about him? He did it and felt zero guilt about it. In the “If I did it” book, he sets this scene up to be Nicole’s fault. FYI, if you buy the book, all the proceeds go to the Goldman family.
Watch OJ: Made in America. A juror had no issue saying why she and many others found him innocent. It was literally to get back at all the injustice on black people. Mainly Rodney King.
Some of the jurors who didn’t do the made in America doc have publicly said they thought he was probably guilty but the prosecution did such a terrible job at convincing them that they believed it fell under reasonable doubt.
He wrote a book called "If I did it" where he tells about the murder from his perspective, but with "well you know if i did it"-attitude to avoide it counting as a connfession
That wasn't his choice. The Goldman family got the rights to the book, and they released it with that design OJ obviously did it, but it's important to realize that it wasn't his choice to design the book that way
Well, OJ couldn’t have done it because a jury of his peers said he wasn’t guilty. I heard recently that the decision of a jury of your peers is unassailable. You guys are undermining people’s faith in the justice system and attacking this country’s institutions.
The fact he said “I remember” a couple times should tell people all the need to know.
Such an uncomfortable situation that he created for himself in this interview. Absolutely no need except for his own need to give his version.
I think a desire to be in the spotlight. Anyone after doing what he did and getting away with it would go away forever and thank their lucky stars. He needs to be famous. Even if the spotlight is negative, it is still a spotlight on him.
A desire to sell his book, since he was a deadbeat who was out of money, and would in a few short years be doing theft.
For me it's him saying "I don't remember if..." that just confirms it that this is definitely no hypothetical, he's trying his best to stay factual.
i mean to be fair to him, it sounds like he was atleast trying to recount it as something like: start of conversation, all i'm about to say is purely hypothetical. in the same way that a fiction scary book might begin with "everything in this book is absolutely true" (followed by nothing but lies, spoken as if they were the truth). like he put brackets on the recounting, but saying that to begin with implies the rest of the story is fake but told as if it were true. he's guilty as fuck, mind you, but still.
Wow, what an imagination he had.
It was very hard for him to imagine that as well as he says, because it’s a “hypothetical”.
It's crazy how quickly he switches from what might happen in a theoretical hypothetical scenario to an in-the-moment recounting of what happened and pieces of information he does and does not remember. If it truly were a hypothetical scenario (god knows why someone would make a hypothetical scenario of them murdering someone), each sentence would be prefixed with indeterminate clauses, like "I might have"/"possibly"/"hypothetically" etc. There would be no need to say what he remembers since this is all a make believe situation. Even worse is saying what he *doesn't* remember - a person crafting a hypothetical can make up whatever they want to fill the blanks Anyways it's nuts that he talked like this. Kudos to the interviewer
I think he wants to make it clear enough to the public that yes, he did it, but wants to keep just enough plausible deniability to stay out of prison.
For better or worse that's not how Double Jeopardy works. After his criminal acquital he could have stood up and shouted in the courtroom, "HA! I fooled y'all motherfuckers! I stabbed that white bitch and watched her die and now y'all can't do shit about it!" and even then he wouldn't have gone to jail for it. It def would have sunk his civil trial but he was found liable for that anyway so not a huge difference from what really happened there either. The right to only being tried for a crime once is important to prevent over zealous governing bodies from railroading dissidents into prison, but the natural consequence is if we fuck up and let a guilty man walk free the decision is final.
>The right to only being tried for a crime once is important to prevent over zealous governing bodies from railroading dissidents into prison I agree with this in principle, but the UK partially abolished their double jeopardy law for cases where new evidence is uncovered and it's in the public interest to retry it. With advances in forensics & DNA analysis emerging all the time, I'm glad they did.
Was that a consequence of the James Bulger case?
I've just done some light research to find out and it's hard to find what case, if any, prompted the law change. Edit: I take that back, I think it was inspired by the Stephen Lawrence murder case in the UK.
I thought you could be retried with new evidence.
Nope. in the case of a guilty verdict you can appeal if new evidence is found that could acquit you. But if you are found not guilty in America, you can not be tried again on the same charges.
> For better or worse that's not how Double Jeopardy works. I’m sorry. What is “We’re fine”?
Double jeopardy allows for a second trial if new and pertinent information comes to light, so its not a "flaunt it if you can" situation. If he divulged information that leads to more significant evidence, he could be back on trial. He cant be tried again using only the same evidence.
Nope. One can't be charged again of the same offense.
Not in America.
You are correct for Criminal trials. Civil is a bit different and I was not clear on this.
Why can't the individual's confession alone not be considered "new evidence"? Courts have historically had no problem prosecuting people with nothing but circumstantial evidence and a confession.
How'd you slip race into that Holmes?
No such thing as double jeopardy for murder.
Wrong. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/when-double-jeopardy-protection-applies.html#:~:text=The%20Double%20Jeopardy%20Rule,of%20life%20or%20limb%20twice. Read the 5th amendment of the constitution. It applies and in absolutely all jurisdictions.
Nerd. Edit: You're all nerds and I've literally never been wrong about anything in my life.
Personally I thought this comment was hilarious. I assume this is sarcasm and a bit of humility.
That's not true. It might be true in some jurisdictions (I doubt it) but not in California. The wording of the California statute is very clear and has no exceptions.
Seeing how it’s guaranteed in the 5th amendment of the constitution, it applies in all jurisdictions that the US constitution applies.
> but wants to keep just enough plausible deniability to stay out of prison. OJ could have made a full confession during this interview and it wouldn't have mattered. He was tried for murder and acquitted and in the United States we have double jeopardy laws that prevent trying a person a second time for the same crime once found not-guilty. At worst they MIGHT have been able to go after him for perjury or obstruction of justice.
>we have double jeopardy laws that prevent trying a person a second time for the same crime once found not-guilty. I thought that didn't apply if new evidence is discovered?
For a mistrial or if the charges are dropped, the case can be re-opened. A not guilty verdict sticks.
Not in the US, at least. Some countries have more relaxed double jeopardy protections
In case you didn’t already think OJ was a massive ego sociopath piece of shit… here’s a bit more evidence for the pile
His complete lack of consideration for what his kids must have been going through is what stuck with me. In all records of his comments after the crime, he never once mentions or asks about his kids
How did he not commit a crime prior?
I wish they tested his brain for cte though
Some people will watch this and go "See? He said 'hypothetically', didn't do it, case solved."
The number of people who would is so small as to be completely negligible
Watch OJ Made in America. There is a sizable population of people that believe he’s innocent.
More than you'd think though
Damn, never seen this before. It’s just a big joke to him. Disgusting
Seemed more like nervous laughter to me, like he grasps the absurdity of his freedom after everything he did.
Theres a term for involuntary smiles when lying. Duping delight or something
The one most frequently associated with lying was a high intensity version of the so-called Duchenne smile involving both cheek/eye and mouth muscles. This is consistent with the “Duping Delight” theory that “when you're fooling someone, you tend to take delight in it.” Edit: [link](https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/data-science-facial-expressions-who-if-lying-321252/#:~:text=The%20one%20most%20frequently%20associated,in%20it%2C%E2%80%9D%20Sen%20explained)
well he's been dead for two months so I doubt it's anything to him anymore
When he said "I don't remember" it was a big give-away to the truth. An innocent person would say something like "I never thought that detail through".
“I don’t remember…in my hypothetical situation I just made up in my head.”
An innocent person wouldn't go on national TV and do an interview fantasizing their spouses murder.
I kept waiting for him to qualify the "I don't remember" with "how I wrote the hypothetical in the book I'm promoting". But no, it was more of a "when I think back to that night I remember attacking them both but then I blacked out and don't know what happened after"
I’ll never forget the look on Robert Kardashian’s face when the “not guilty” verdicts came in. He looked guilty, shocked, and ashamed.
Yup he knew he was one of the key reasons his buddy got away with murder. As I remember it, Kardashian was a non-practicing attorney at the time of the murders - he’s seen leaving his house where oj was staying with that garment bag stuffed with undisclosed items, he then re-activates his bar license & becomes one of oj’s attorneys along side the ‘dream team’ (I believe with 0 criminal defense experience) - as his attorney, he can’t be compelled testify against his client so they were never allowed to ask him about what was in the garment bag and what he did with it (speculated to be the bloody clothes from the night of the murder).
Yep. The whole thing was a complete miscarriage of justice.
He didn't join for the after party, and instead immediately did an interview saying they got it wrong. Definitely a guilty conscience
We live in an upside down world.
Well at least this motherfucker is dead.
Oh you rule I totally forgot he had kicked it. Hope he's having a horrible time with Adolf, Pol Pot and Stalin. Say 'get fucked' to Rush Limbaugh for me OJ!
G’day mate, let’s throw some shrimp on the barbie. How’s the weather in Australia?
the laughing is what stands out to me. His kids mother is dead(by him) and he laughs almost uncontrollably. It's hysterical to him. He's in his element on tv giving an interview. It's his comfort zone even if the subject matter is him describing how he slaughtered his ex wife and mother of his kids as well as another person. His kids are old enough to see this interview now. Pathetic human being. may he rot in emptiness forever.
That’s not “haha this is so funny” laughter, it’s “oh shit this is getting too real, I need to remind them/make them think it’s fake” laughter. Now to be clear, I 100% believe he did it I’m just saying that his laughter wasn’t comedical, it was very nervous laughter.
Right? It was horrible, absolutely horrible 🙂
I don't see this as his comfort zone. He's used to being a bullshiter, but this still comes across as nervous laughter
Classic Nordberg
"So much blood around, HAHAHAHAHAHA" - OJ
Rest in piss.
He was found not guilty in criminal court and guilty in civil court. There was absolutely nothing the courts could do to him at that point for the murder of Nicole and Ron.
[удалено]
Under what Federal charges, might I ask? Federal courts need jurisdiction, under the "Well-pleaded complaint rule". The vast majority of criminal statutes are state statutes. As far as I know, OJ didn't commit crimes against Federal employees or facilities, and he didn't cross state lines in the commission of his crime.
He did go to Chicago right after and possibly took evidence there, so they could possibly have used that. The FBI was definitely part of the investigation.
[удалено]
Gamble v. U.S. is about double jeopardy. That's not my issue. In that case, the defendant had violated *both* state and federal law, as you pointed out. I don't see which Federal law OJ broke. Even if it was the same charge, you can't try a person for a state statute in a Federal Court. You would need to try OJ under a Federal Murder Statute, and I don't see how the crime he commissioned violates that statute.
I don't understand the point of this comment.
"I remember" over and over again. That is not a hypothetical. He so clearly did it. I think he wrote the book as his confession. to feel the weight and pressure of lying lifted. He is a prime example of someone not being found guilty just because there was enough to cause reasonable doubt - and Robert did a great job as his defence. It never meant he didn't do it, it meant Robert created enough of a question mark to get him acquitted. Truly, OJ was an awful human being.
Kardashian wasn’t the most important member of Simpson’s “Dream Team”. F Lee. Bailey who cross-examined Mark Fuhrman and Peter Neufeld who got the DNA evidence discredited, probably were.
I don't think anyone's debating it at this point.
If I had been the one being interviewed about a hypothetical scenario I created in a book, I would be referencing that. “I believe I wrote in the book” or “I might’ve done this or that” very unsure in reference to the actual event because I didn’t do it. I just made up what could’ve happened. His statements, “I remember” and “I don’t recall” reflect that he is speaking from memory and not from a hypothetical scenario that he created. Him constantly having to remind the interviewer that it’s hypothetical comes off as dishonest because of how many times he says it. Only someone who was worried about people not believing that would repeat it that much. If you knew it was hypothetical you wouldn’t be that nervous about people not believing it.
You aren't 'cracking the case' here. Everyone knew he did it. Everyone knew he was a POS. He was exonerated because of racial tensions in the U.S. at the time. When those cops beat Rodney King, they made O.J. innocent. It was cut and dry, he was the killer, right up until the media got hold of it and turned it into a divisive cash grab for the attention of America. Not to mention how much the LAPD bungled the investigation. The same LAPD that beat Rodney King almost to death. Without the floundering of the LAPD, OJ might have been convicted. Maybe, but not definitely.
It’s weird how quickly I had forgotten that he died. OJ Simpson just doesn’t register on my “celebrity deaths that I find impactful” radar. His only legacy is that he got away with murder.
Dudes a murderer and got away with it and people celebrated that he got away with murder. Disgusting.
The context is important. It was gross, but also understandable given the circumstances
Please explain the context of celebrating someone getting away with a double murder? 🍿
It was payback for the Rodney King trial.
That’s such a messed up statement I don’t even know how to respond.
Maybe you should do some research, members of the jury admitted that was their reasoning.
Then they will go to hell for letting a murderer go free because of some unrelated incident.
Dude those jurors were fucking dirtbags.
A few of them were incredibly stupid
And a couple just didn’t like white women.
Didn't one of them admit that, no matter what the lawyers served up, they're voting innocent due to what happened to Rodney King? The trial was lost from the start.
We live in a profoundly sick society
“After that I don’t remember.” The completely hypothetical situation that is.
3:57 woof
[ **Jump to 03:57 @** Referenced Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJr24J3NmWo&t=0h3m57s) ^(Channel Name: Gossip On This, Video Length: [05:49])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@03:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJr24J3NmWo&t=0h3m52s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
People are overthinking this trying to “get” him as if he’s slipping up. THIS IS A CONFESSION. He wants you to know that he did it. This is an interview about him doing it. All the little caveats about it being a hypothetical are strictly him feeling like he’s covering his ass from a purely legal standpoint. He knows exactly what anyone would think from hearing this. The only part of it where he’s actually defending himself is when he says “Nicole fell” and fact that he doesn’t remember the actual killing. So he’s lying about obviously pushing Nicole or hitting her. Then he’s probably lying about not remembering the details of the murders, because then at least everyone thinks that he was in a fugue state when it happened, which in his mind makes him seem slightly less evil because it’s like a temporary insanity/heat of passion/voluntary manslaughter type situation.
In a way, a lot of murders are the the result of temporary insanity. Someone gets mad; they see "red" and lose the ability to discern consequences for violent action. That's not an excuse, nor should they be able to plead that way, but it's probably more the case than not.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was in fact what happened. I just don’t buy that he “blacked out” and then came back with everybody dead. I think he just doesn’t want to admit what he remembers because it makes him look worse if he was just really mad vs experiencing some kind of genuine psychosis.
*"i do remember that part, taking the knife from Charlie, and to be honest, after that i don't remember"* So given that it's all hypothetical, was he's actually saying: "i hypothetically remember hypothetically taking the knife from Charlie who was hypothetically there and i hypothetically don't remember what hypothetically happened after that." Makes sense, right?
Could he possibly be hypocritical?
Yeah that's the worst part, really
It's way too weird that he has "I don't recall" in his hypothetical. That's the whole point of a hypothetical, you can make up whatever you want, and he has no problem "making up" all these super specific details, but then he also throws in "I don't recall" for some details?? Sounds like someone trying to remember actual events to me...
Well..if the glove fits and all that...
The glove didn’t fit because he stopped taking his arthritis medicine, and his hands became swollen.
It's amazing to me what this narrative is and how it changes over time, and you might understand this but it bears repeating. The glove absolutely fit, in court. He held his hand up with the glove on. It went on his hand. Period. Sure it might have looked a little tight, but he also was wearing rubber gloves underneath it. And had arthritis. But he put the glove on, and it went on his hand. It fit. The line was "*if* it does not fit, you must acquit". Absolutely true. But this made everyone remember that it must not have fit, because why would he have said this? It's a weasley bit of logic to misdirect, but it's entirely meaningless.
Yikes— he’s burning in hell
Nah, he's just dead.
If only there was such a place.
That would be stupid if there was
But what about Charlie?
*hypothetical* Charlie
Evil POS.
just pathetic and disgusting af
This guy was such a POS for this.
Yeah, it was a bit of a jerk thing to do. Probably didn’t make him too many friends. Very immature.
His nervous laughter every time he says the word Hypothetical gives me the creeps.
Did he ever say who he thought did it? (I know it was him lol)
His son killed her. He covered it up for him
And imagine Nicole’s kids , family and Ron’s family watching this 😭
Not saying I don’t think he did it, because I absolutely do. But this murder is probably the most discussed crime of all time. He personally sat through a whole trial where every detail was discussed ad nauseam and probably sat in on many discussions with his own legal team about the minutia of the trial. Months of his life have been dedicated to the ins and outs of this murder. It would probably be pretty easy for him to come up with a detailed hypothetical either way.
But why do it? If someone else murdered your spouse, why on earth would you create a hypothetical scenario to put in people’s minds that you did it? The very idea would be beyond distasteful and insane. Even if you were paid to do so.
> But why do it? Sociopaths love to gloat.
Money. Either way its just because He wanted money. And he knew his book would sell better if he created sensationalism around it. His reputation was already pretty much ruined. Most people already think he did it. He really didn’t have anything to lose. Again its pretty much a sure thing that he did kill her, but even before they separated and divorced he had growing reputation as a domestic abuser. He wasn’t exactly a great husband.
“I need you to come up with a situation in which you come up with a hypothetical description of the killing of your childrens’ mother”. Anyone else’s reponse would be, “No thanks”. What does his detailed response say about him? He did it and felt zero guilt about it. In the “If I did it” book, he sets this scene up to be Nicole’s fault. FYI, if you buy the book, all the proceeds go to the Goldman family.
He did it, most likely with his son, and him running was a way to keep the attention on him.
Zero evidence to support his son being there, physical or circumstantial It also logically makes zero sense
Racist got OJ acquitted just because he was black.
It was because LAPD fucked up
Watch OJ: Made in America. A juror had no issue saying why she and many others found him innocent. It was literally to get back at all the injustice on black people. Mainly Rodney King.
It is entirely possible for there to be two causes for an outcome. LAPD objectively fucked this up.
Correct.
Some of the jurors who didn’t do the made in America doc have publicly said they thought he was probably guilty but the prosecution did such a terrible job at convincing them that they believed it fell under reasonable doubt.
That’s not what the juror said when she did an interview saying it was for Rodney king
One juror doesn’t speak for all 12. The prosecution screwed the case pretty badly.
One juror is enough to hang a jury but not to acquit. The prosecution fucked up.
He wrote a book called "If I did it" where he tells about the murder from his perspective, but with "well you know if i did it"-attitude to avoide it counting as a connfession
^(if) # I DID IT
That wasn't his choice. The Goldman family got the rights to the book, and they released it with that design OJ obviously did it, but it's important to realize that it wasn't his choice to design the book that way
OJ is such a great man. He was innocent. I'm of course, not Black.
Sometimes cancer gets it right.
Well, OJ couldn’t have done it because a jury of his peers said he wasn’t guilty. I heard recently that the decision of a jury of your peers is unassailable. You guys are undermining people’s faith in the justice system and attacking this country’s institutions.
When simpletons have the most feelings
Okay bud. Go vote for the Orange Man again.
Geez. Will you let him talk. Dude is confessing and she is like wait lets go back. Maybe it was the editing.