Talk:Murder trial of O. J. Simpson

Chewbacca Defense

What, no link or mention at all? I added it under "see also" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldavid (talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Note: some talk about the trials is on the Talk:O. J. Simpson page. -- Pinktulip 12:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: The old contents of this discussion were archived. Here is the link to the archive.

sentencing

someone put at the end of the murder trial that he was sentenced on the 5th. this was because of the robbery and not the murders and is misleading and irrelevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.184.111 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Some of the evidence seems to be more against the integrity of the case rather than O.J. Simpson. If this is the case, it needs to be put into its own section. Shicoco (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Tags on this page

I removed the out-of-date tag, and I'm voting to remove the request for pictures, what does everyone else think? Shicoco (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Two cases, two trials

The two cases make this article hard. He was found not guilty(by reasonable doubt) through a criminal case but the opposite in a civil case. The makeup of this article should reflect both sides, not offering favoritism of one or the other. Yes, it would be useful if there were more thorough coverage of the civil court trial.--Parkwells (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people were outraged that the perpetrator(s) of this heinous crime disappeared and has (have) not been caught and brought to trial. Are these same people outraged that OJ's successful lawyers did not immediately come to his aid at the civil trial? What happened to their confidence in his innocence? Who were his (incompetent?) lawyers in the civil trial, anyway? JohnClarknew (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

According to pretty much all observers at the time, Simpson had a very good defense attorney during his civil trial. I've added citations for that along with a section on that trial.--Gloriamarie (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The civil trial was not a "murder case" but a wrongful death and survival case. Either the title of this article should be changed, or information about the civil case should be moved to a separate article.

Missing section on what happened the night of the murders

Where is the section that describes the sequence of events that happened the night of the murders? This would be done best in timeline form. I found it ridiculous that I had to search up and down the article to find the date the murders took place, it isn't even mentioned until the very end. Wildonrio (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png

The image File:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Year of the Murder Not in the Lead

The year of the murder is not mentioned in the first several paragraphs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterKidd (talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the year to the lead, just to provide some context for what follows. --StaniStani  09:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No evidence to following statement

Racial tensions grew through the trial.

With all due respect, this sounds like garbage our media would make up or play up. Most Americans saw this trail like it was a soap opera or a tabloid. Anyone who believes white's or black's were that personally effected by a condescending millionare is a complete fool. So it's not appropriate to promote that. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC).

In the same polls, most white Americans said they believed that the case against Simpson was solid.

What polls? Where's the source for this quote. Until there is evidence to support this, I'll delete it. This is an open ended statement. White's were no special exception to this.

They believed a conviction would give a green light to police misconduct.

Who's they? I want to see a source. Is this another quote saying a group of people say something that can't be proven?

In polls, reactions to the trial broke down along racial lines. A large percentage of African Americans across the nation were unconvinced or felt that Simpson had not committed the crime.

It's the same problem. What polls? The comment sounds like it sound be in the script of a Family Guy episode. It's a media play up. Wikipedia may not necessarily be totally reliable for information, but this isn't the media. There's no value in making strident or politically motivated comments. This isn't Fox News or CNN.

Overall, this entire paragraph lacks source and appears to be overly opinionated. Therefore, I'll be deleting it. TomNyj0127 (talk)

There has been a multitude of polls on this case. All one has to do is go to google and type in "OJ Simpson Murder Polls". The claim that no such polls exist is absolutely ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Quasi-confessions

This section is full of frivolous debatable facts with little or no citing from official sources. I think the whole section should be removed. It is as appropriate as having a quasi-denial section.Zaleneke (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ross cutlery knife point deleted.

Detective Bert Luper of the Robbery Homicide Division found O.J.’s German Stiletto in the first search of his home in the box and unused but the prosecution did not learn of his discovery until the murder trial. http://www.smartfellowspress.com/murder_weapons.htm Zaleneke (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DNA Evidence Probability

The article states in part "DNA showed that blood found at the scene of Brown's murder was O.J. Simpson's. The odds it could have come from anyone but Simpson were about one in 170 million." That is not correct: 170,000,000 to 1 is the approximate odds against any one human being in the world leaving their blood at the site of the murder.

The odds of it being Simpson's blood is vastly more likely than 170,000,000:1, but it cannot be calculated--- it is impossible.

How can a number be assigned to the following:

Simpson (1) knew the victims, (2) threatened to murder one of the victims, (3) often battered one of the victims, (4) had a bleeding injury, (5) had been to the murder site several times before the murders, (6) was caught with tools that could be used to prevent blood from being found in the back of a vehicle (a plastic sheet) while transporting a body, and a shovel to dig a ad hoc grave with, and (7) every house in the world had a bloody glove in it, found by law enforcement.

The odds of 1:170,000,000 would only be correct if the above seven points applied to every single human being on the planet living at the time. They do not, so that figure is wrong.

It makes no sense to even claim one can calculate the odds of if it was Simpson's blood or not. One can say, however, that the blood found at the murder site was and is similar to 3,853 other people in the world (given a population of about 6.55 billion). One can say that the odds were reported as 170,000,000, and that would be correct, but one can also say that that reported odds of Simpson leaving the book at the murder site was and is wrong.

See [[1]]

The main article should be changed to say that the odds were reported as 170,000,000:1 and not that the odds are 170,000,000:1. --Desertphile (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong dates

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/simpsonchron.html

this site seems to show the dates as consistantly of by one. Now I know this is pacific california time but what did they have the trials at 12 mindight??? Please inc,lude sources for the simpson trials like

After a week-long court hearing, a California Superior Court judge ruled on July 7 that there was ample evidence to try Simpson for the murders. At his second court appearance, on July 23, Simpson stated, "Absolutely, one hundred percent, not guilty."

Leading the murder investigation was veteran LAPD detective Tom Lange. In 1995 the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson took place through 134 days of televised testimony. The prosecution elected not to ask for the death penalty and instead sought a life sentence. The TV exposure made celebrities of many of the figures in the trial, including Judge Lance Ito.

source please?

Covered and televised by Court TV, and in part by other cable and network news outlets, the trial began on January 25, 1995. Los Angeles County prosecutor Christopher Darden argued that Simpson killed his ex-wife in a jealous rage. The prosecution opened its case by playing a 9-1-1 call which Nicole Brown Simpson had made on January 1, 1989. She expressed fear that Simpson would physically harm her, and he could be heard yelling at her in the background. The prosecution also presented dozens of expert witnesses, on subjects ranging from DNA fingerprinting to blood and shoeprint analysis, to place Simpson at the scene of the crime.

The prosecution spent the opening weeks of the trial presenting evidence that Simpson had a history of physically abusing Nicole. Simpson's lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued that only a tiny fraction of women who are abused by their mates are murdered.

source please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.158.84 (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloody???

"On Sunday, February 12, 1995, a long motorcade traveled into Brentwood where the judge, jurors, prosecutors, and defense lawyers made a two-hour inspection of the bloody crime scene, and then a three-hour tour of O.J. Simpson's Rockingtham estate. Simpson, under guard by several officers but not wearing handcuffs, waited outside the crime scene in an unmarked police car, but was permitted to enter his Rockingham house." I have removed the word 'bloody'-- this was months after the event and I doubt that the scene was still bloody. Cross Reference (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ron or Ronald

Can't you stick to one name for him? Using both can be misleading, messy and looks unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.207.44 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternate murder theories

There used to be several alternate explanations for the murders listed, with references. What happened to them? OJ was, after all, acquitted, and so from the perspective of the judicial system, the perpetrator is yet to be discovered. Shoplifter (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I found and re-instated the theory that it was in fact Simpson's son who committed the murders. Shoplifter (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

SNL Confession?

The head section of this article states that Simpson confessed the the murder on an episode of Saturday Night Live. This statement is uncited, and I couldn't find any references to it in a quick Google search. This is a very strong statement to make, especially without citing it, or even mentioning it again in the article. I'm going to remove the statement, unless anyone can provide evidence of its truth; and if so, it should be properly cited, and expounded upon in the "Psuedo-confessions" section of the article. 71.192.39.45 (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Video

This was a televised trial but I can’t seem to find the video of it anywhere online. It’s not in the External Links section, but should be added. Any idea on where I can find a copy the entire trial? Not just a few highlighted sections of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.125.119 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Fuhrman timeline

Mark Fuhrman's page states he entered the house to find the gloves. This isn't on the timeline on this page. Does anyone know when he entered the house (which house), etc? This seems relevant to this page and the timeline since he ended up being such a prominent character. Jeff Carr (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dates on Jennifer Peace's involvement

I'm pretty sure that the reference to Peace's comments as taking place in 2004 is wrong. Here's the Time article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981471-2,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSquirrel42 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Exiting Bronco

The item in italics was removed: The chase ended at 8 P.M. at Simpson's Brentwood home, 50 miles later. After remaining in the Bronco for about 45 minutes (coincidently Simpson exited the Bronco seconds after the end of Game 5 of the NBA Finals in which the New York Knicks beat the Houston Rockets 91 to 84),.

The NBA game might explain why Simpson remained in the Bronco for 45 minutes. tuco_bad 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the Bronco belonged to Al Cowlings, although Simpson had a similar one. This was an important point for the prosecution, as Simpson could not reasonably claim that his passport and the large amount of cash he was carrying happened to be in the Bronco, as it did not belong to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.150.43 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence not used

Should the following be added to the evidence not used?

http://baileyandelliott.com/Anecdotes%20(PDFs)/The%20Simpson%20Verdict,%20Part%20Two.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.48.189 (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"OMIG" material in "Alternate Murder Theory" section

I am going to boldly remove the entirety of the OMIG material in the Alternate Murder Theory section on three bases. Firstly, it's plainly presenting vastly undue weight to what, secondly, appears very clearly to be a fringe theory that is, thirdly, entirely unsourced. Anyone is free to revert if they disagree, although I'd then like to discuss how and why that material be included. If there are verifiable elements to OMIG's work, I'm happy to see them included, but I can't find anything on them except for a Youtube video, and the whole thing reads like classic fringe theory. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:O. J. Simpson 1994 mug shot.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:O. J. Simpson 1994 mug shot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Simpson Knife Was Surrendered in Court

The article mentions that Simpson purchased a large, serated edge knife but there is no mention of this knife (and the receipt!) being surrendered to the court. An X-Ray of the sealed envelope was broadcast on television along with the receipt which revealed it was the item the store owner claimed he sold to Simpson. Also, if I remember correctly, the limosine driver didn't say he saw Simpson "walking toward the house" but standing in the doorway with his bags but this is only based on notes I kept at the time but didn't save...MARK VENTURE (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A case is not the same as a trial

This article needs to decide if it's about the case, or about the trial. If it's about the murder trial, then the article should be moved, and the stuff about the civil action should be split out somewhere else. If it's about the case, then that's a lot more than the trial; it starts with the discovery of the crime and all investigation arising from it, and the first sentence should certainly not identify the case with the trial. --Trovatore (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Gloves

There is a glaring error in this section and it became a/the turning point in the trial. The phrase, '... if the glove doesn't, you must acquit', became a theme of the trial; and Johnny Cochrane made sure that the gloves did not fit. If you look at any footage of OJ putting on the gloves, you will notice that underneath "The Glove", was another glove, but in this section it is described as a latex (surgical) glove, which are a very pale yellow and skin tight. What OJ wore, was what Cochrane provided, a white vinyl glove. Unlike latex (surgical) gloves, vinyl gloves are thick, not skin tight and very clumsy. As a Medical Purchasing Agent for 17 years, I know the difference between the two because I bought thousands and thousands of pairs of each. I can't reference it but all you have to do is look at any footage or photos and you'll notice the vinyl gloves.Dcrasno (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)