In June of 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson, the ex-wife of famed football player OJ Simpson, and Ron Goldman were both stabbed to death outside of Brown’s home in Brentwood, California. As the main suspect, OJ Simpson was arrested days after the murder when he arrived back to California from Chicago. During the infamous trial, the prosecution attempted to prove that, in a murderous rage spawned by jealousy, OJ committed the murders. Simpson was ultimately acquitted, however, and in order for the jury to render that verdict, there needed to have been reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Objectively speaking, it is impossible to deny the existence of such doubt.
A fault in the prosecution’s case was that, while experts labelled it a rage killing committed by an amateur, the theory of the prosecution was that OJ went to the scene disguised in a knit cap and gloves, and waited in the bushes to kill Nicole. The problem here is that the experts said it was a rage killing but the prosecutors’ theory suggests it was premeditated, an obvious contradiction. Additionally, the Los Angeles Police Department planted Simpson’s blood on the socks that were found on his bedroom floor, and possibly elsewhere. The bloody socks, which were entered into evidence weeks after the murder yet were not seen in the police video the day after, contained a chemical preservative which does not naturally appear in human blood but is added to vials of blood, including the one containing Simpson’s. Furthermore, while 8 cc’s of blood was drawn from OJ, only 6.5 cc’s was entered into evidence. What happened to the missing 1.5 cc’s? Could it have been planted inside OJ’s vehicle? Or the gate at OJ’s house? Considering that detective Philip Vannatter was unsupervised and in possession of the vial for hours after collecting it, I think the answer to both questions is a definitive yes. This alone is enough reasonable doubt to acquit OJ, yet there is more.
Ron Goldman had cuts and bruises on his hands and knuckles, suggesting he fought off his killer. If OJ was the killer, he would have therefore had to have been bruised and possibly cut. However, OJ had no bruises on him, and in fact his only injury was a cut finger, and found in his Chicago hotel room was a broken glass with his blood. Further adding doubt is that multiple officers knowingly lied on the stand, and the jury, aware of this, thus had reason to discount the officers’ testimonies as a whole. Regardless of whether or not you believe OJ is the murderer, though, one simply cannot deny the reasonable doubt the jury was able to use to render their verdict. And in a murder trial, reasonable doubt is all the defendant needs to be acquitted.
Reference: “OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It”, written by William Dear.