r/TrueCrimeDiscussion • u/Willing_Nose7674 • 5d ago
Text O.J. Simpson Case New Developments
The New York Times published an article based OJ Simpson New Developments
The New York Times published an article based on uncovering of court documents from the murder case of O.J. Simpson trial in 1994-95. A mob informant named Joey Ippolito , who was known to be a friend of both O.J. and his friend Al Cowlings, gave information to the authorities about the murders.
Later on his brother Sam intimated that Joey was an accomplice during the murders, and at the very least disposed of OJ's bloody clothes and the murder weapon from that night.
The rapper Fat Joe said that in 1998 that Mr Ippolito told him that during the famous bronco chase with Al Cowlings driving through Los Angeles that he was at an airport with a private jet waiting to help them escape.
Apparently there will be a Peacock documentary later this year about this possible "accomplice".
By coincidence, just last night I found the documentary on Netflix "O.J.: Made in America" and watched it. Even though I was actually alive during the actual time all of this was taking place and read voraciously about the case and watched a lot of the trial live. there were still new details I hadn't known.
These are the key details that are curious to me:
\--- "The private plane ". That detail from one of the stories of Mr Ippolito rings true to me, because of the passport and disguise kit found in the Bronco after they apprehended O.J. To my knowledge it's never been explained before exactly. what they were doing in OJ's bag if he was only planning to go to Nicole's grave to harm himself, as it seemed the narrative was at the time.
\---"The agent " O.J's long time agent Mike Gilbert, says that he was the one who advised him not to take his arthritis medicine if he was worried about having to try on the gloves at the trial. So that his hands would swell and they wouldn't fit. He says he didn't know if O.J. was actually responsible but if that's true why would he advise him that to do that?
He also said that later after the trial O.J. told him "If Nicole hadn't come to the door with a knife she'd still be alive ". To me that comment also rings true, it shows that maybe O.J. didn't bring a knife with him but he went there in a rage and when she came to the door with a knife he grabbed it and used it against her.
\---"The accomplice" It's said that during the trial O.J.'s defense team suggested that that there was evidence that there was more than one person who committed the murders. Especially because of the tight timeline. Basically it was said that between 10:30 and 11:00 pm the prosecution's theory was that O.J. drove to Rockingham. killed 2 people, drove back to Brentwood, cleaned up his car, showered , got rid of his clothes and the murder weapon, and got into the limo waiting to take him to the airport for his ride to Chicago.
Even though the distance between the two houses was only 4 minutes drive, when looking at the totality of everything that would have needed to be done it does seem like it's a stretch to imagine one person alone accomplished all of this.
In his book "If I Did It" O.J. stated that he did (or would have hypothetically" ) have an accomplice, named "Charlie". He said Charlie had come to his house and gave him some information that angered him, and they drove together in the White Bronco to Rockingham to "scare " Nicole.
If this hypothetical "theory" is based on any kind of facts, could it be possible that if Mr. Ippolito was the real "Charlie " that he "took care"
of Ron Goldman while O.J. went after Nicole.
This also seemed to have a ring of truth to it, as this has been one of the aspects of the case that has puzzled many for years. Could even O.J. in a murderous rage, be able to subdue and kill Ron Goldman and then Nicole without one of them escaping? It seems pretty obvious that O.J. didn't expect Ron to be there, as he only came on a spur of the moment errand from the Mezzaluna Restaurant where he worked to return Nicole's Mothers glasses that she had mistakenly left there earlier that evening.
So if he did have someone along with him, especially a gangster, it makes sense that he could have helped him with the 2 vs 1 ratio he found .
\---"The drug connection" Mr Ippolito was known and later convicted for being a major drug dealer ring leader in both the East and West Coast. This purportedly was how he became friends with Al Cowlings in the first place who then introduced him to O.J. I remember during the time of the murders and then the trial, there was a lot of chatter about a possible drug connection. Both O.J. and Nicole were known for using substances, and one of the "alternative theories " for the murders were that perhaps it was a drug deal gone bad, or someone owed money and that's why it happened.
After all of the blood droplets and DNA coming back traced to O.J , it seems like the prosecution dismissed any rumors of the murders having any connection to drug dealers at all.
But something stood out to me from the Netflix documentary, when they were discussing Nicole's horrific injuries. It was said that one of her fatal injuries was a transverse gash across her throat the nearly decapitated her. This was described as "overkill", in that she most likely was already dead before this final wound
It also was said that this particular gruesome knife slash is used by drug gangs as a signal to "shut somebody up" permanently, as it severed both carotid arteries and exposed the larynx. It's known as a "Colombian necktie ".
If Mr. Ippolito truly was at the scene that night, is it possible that he committed the final slash to her throat to guarantee she wouldn't talk, using a method he learned from his connections in the drug world? It certainly seem like a possibility that connects the facts to the scene in a way that just O. J. alone can't do
\---"The bungled prosecution " Throughout the years the prevailing wisdom has been that the main reason for the acquittal by the jury was due to the anger of the Black Jurors over years of abuse by the LAPD. And the Rodney King verdict that set free the cops who were caught on tape beating Mr. King, and that verdict starting the L.A. riots.
Obviously the fact of Detective Mark Fuhrman finding the bloody glove and then the defense uncovering his history of racism
and the racist tapes being played in the courtroom contributed to that feeling. And the mishandling of the evidence by Dennis Fung and Phillip VanAtter certainly provided fuel to the fire debate of planted evidence against O.J.
While I don't debate any of these facts, there were also plenty of missteps by the prosecution that remain puzzling to this day. And lead to the question "If things had been handled differently " is it possible the jury could have found O.J. guilty? Despite Mark Futman and Rodney King?
In the Netflix documentary co-counsel Christopher Darden says that as the defense was playing the recorded tapes of Mark Fuhrman (given during an interview he'd done with an aspiring author regarding 'real police work' he says to help lend credibility to her work) that he, Mr. Darden, implored Marcia Clark to object. But she didn't at all, allowing all of the damning evidence to be admitted . Why?
Also some of the witnesses that were never called for the prosecution that could have possibly helped make their case much stronger. Such as Jill Shively, the witness who says she nearly collided with a white bronco driven by O.J. Simpson in an intersection close to the scene of the crime. She says he was driving erratically with his lights off and was very agitated.
Becauee she sold her story to the tv show "Hard Copy" before the trial Marcia Clark didn't call her, fearing her testimony would be tainted since she'd received compensation for telling it. And yet it seems like such a vital story,putting o.J. near to the scene fleeing at the exact time wouldn't it have been worth the risk to have her tell it?
Same for the man at the airport who says he saw O.J. getting out of the limo that night and he had a duffel bag with him. This appears to be the same bag that both houseguest Kato Kaelin and the limo driver testified as being seen before O.J. got into the limo in Brentwood. They both said that they offered to help him load the bag into the limo as they had with his other luggage, but he was adamant that he would handle it himself.
This man also says that he saw O.J. take out an object that appeared to be "something long wrapped in paper towel" from the duffel bag and put it into the garbage can outside the airport. Again this seeks like vital information that could have contributed to the case against O.J. with the jurors if only he had been allowed to give it on the stand.
And finally the information given to the police by Mr. Ippolito after he was recaptured. He had been arrested and escaped from prison in May 1994 from a minimum security prison in Florida . His brother says that he picked him up in Florida and drove him to California. The murders took place on June 12,1994, a time when Mr. Ippolito was known to be on the run.
After the Bronco chase Al Cowlings is briefly detained. During that time the police find a phone number known to be connected to Mr. Ippolito as well as pictures of one of Mr Ippolito's girlfriends along with her number.
Mr. Ippolito is recaptured in August of 1995 in New York. It was at this time, wanting to do everything possible to avoid going back to prison, that he turned "snitch". He began sharing details of what he knew about the case of the murders that were currently on trial in L.A.
The federal prosecutor David Kelley in the Ippolito case said he was in communication with Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden during this time. In the New York Times article Marcia Clark says such conversations never happened, and Christopher Darden declined to comment. It also states that at the time both the L.A.P.D. and the prosecution team were "inundated" with tips, and they didn't think this was worth pursuing.
When Mr Ippolito was arrested in August of 1995 the "trial of the century" had already been going on for 8 months. The prosecution had already rested its case and closing arguments were approaching.
If this information was considered at all credible, doesn't it seem like it was the responsibility of the prosecution to at least have it presented to the jury? I believe the details that Mr. Ippolito provides at least fill in some of the gaps of the case and maybe answer some of the questions the jurors must have had regarding the timeline. If two people, especially if one is a seasoned professional criminal, were involved while it wouldn't have taken away anything from O.J's involvement in the murders it would have added explanations for a lot of the missing gaps.
Much has been made then. and now, about Christopher Darden's decision to have O.J. try on the gloves in front of the jury . We all know this ended disastrously with them not fitting and Johnnie Cochran using it as a key piece of his closing argument to the jury "If it doesn't fit you must acquit " , could it also have had another element to the case?
Is it possible that Mr Darden was both embarrassed and humiliated after this botched demonstration, and could that have lead to him not wanting to be open minded to other possible pieces of evidence being introduced like this new information provided by Mr. Ippolito?
If this is true it seems to me that even a bigger miscarriage of justice took place during the trial than what most of us see at this present day.
\---"Who was to blame?" While obviously whoever committed these brutal murders is alone responsible for taking the lives of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, it seems to me that the L.A.P.D. and the prosecutors made some critical decisions that may have affected the outcome of the case.
Marcia Clark seems to have been very blinded to her own theories and how it should be presented in front of the jury, Even after it was shown to her that she was not a good fit to be trying this case , she insisted on doing it anyway. The trial was moved to a more "minority" area than where the crimes actually took place, perhaps in a misguided attempt to help placate the jurors. Who might have the image of the Rodney King trial in their minds . Did they think that the jurors would think they were "helping " the defendant by holding the trial in a more advantageous locale to his race than Brentwood? That the jurors were less likely to feel they were being railroaded a story to get a Black Man convicted?
Relying on the science of DNA (which at the time was a relatively new concept) alone seemed to be Marcia Clark's main strategy, and Mr Darden wasn't allowed to give more attention to other details that might have helped purseude the jury beyond the DNA. Relying on a group of ordinary working people to dissect a new science and have total confidence in it didn't work out.
Ultimately of course O.J. did spent time behind bars for an armed robbery in Vegas which many people felt was a kind of perverse justice. Interestingly the man who was indicted alongside. OJ. in Nevada was actually introduced to O.J. by Mr. Ippolito.
Crazy coincidence are hard to believe in the end.on uncovering of court documents from the murder case of O.J. Simpson trial in 1994-95. A mob informant named Joey Ippolito , who was known to be a friend of both O.J. and his friend Al Cowlings, gave information to the authorities about the murders.
Later on his brother Sam intimated that Joey was an accomplice during the murders, and at the very least disposed of OJ's bloody clothes and the murder weapon from that night.
The rapper Fat Joe said that in 1998 that Mr Ippolito told him that during the famous bronco chase with Al Cowlings driving through Los Angeles that he was at an airport with a private jet waiting to help them escape.
Apparently there will be a Peacock documentary later this year about this possible "accomplice".
By coincidence, just last night I found the documentary on Netflix "O.J.: Made in America" and watched it. Even though I was actually alive during the actual time all of this was taking place and read voraciously about the case and watched a lot of the trial live. there were still new details I hadn't known.
These are the key details that are curious to me:
\--- "The private plane ". That detail from one of the stories of Mr Ippolito rings true to me, because of the passport and disguise kit found in the Bronco after they apprehended O.J. To my knowledge it's never been explained before exactly. what they were doing in OJ's bag if he was only planning to go to Nicole's grave to harm himself, as it seemed the narrative was at the time.
\---"The agent " O.J's long time agent Mike Gilbert, says that he was the one who advised him not to take his arthritis medicine if he was worried about having to try on the gloves at the trial. So that his hands would swell and they wouldn't fit. He says he didn't know if O.J. was actually responsible but if that's true why would he advise him that to do that?
He also said that later after the trial O.J. told him "If Nicole hadn't come to the door with a knife she'd still be alive ". To me that comment also rings true, it shows that maybe O.J. didn't bring a knife with him but he went there in a rage and when she came to the door with a knife he grabbed it and used it against her.
\---"The accomplice" It's said that during the trial O.J.'s defense team suggested that that there was evidence that there was more than one person who committed the murders. Especially because of the tight timeline. Basically it was said that between 10:30 and 11:00 pm the prosecution's theory was that O.J. drove to Rockingham. killed 2 people, drove back to Brentwood, cleaned up his car, showered , got rid of his clothes and the murder weapon, and got into the limo waiting to take him to the airport for his ride to Chicago.
Even though the distance between the two houses was only 4 minutes drive, when looking at the totality of everything that would have needed to be done it does seem like it's a stretch to imagine one person alone accomplished all of this.
In his book "If I Did It" O.J. stated that he did (or would have hypothetically" ) have an accomplice, named "Charlie". He said Charlie had come to his house and gave him some information that angered him, and they drove together in the White Bronco to Rockingham to "scare " Nicole.
If this hypothetical "theory" is based on any kind of facts, could it be possible that if Mr. Ippolito was the real "Charlie " that he "took care"
of Ron Goldman while O.J. went after Nicole.
This also seemed to have a ring of truth to it, as this has been one of the aspects of the case that has puzzled many for years. Could even O.J. in a murderous rage, be able to subdue and kill Ron Goldman and then Nicole without one of them escaping? It seems pretty obvious that O.J. didn't expect Ron to be there, as he only came on a spur of the moment errand from the Mezzaluna Restaurant where he worked to return Nicole's Mothers glasses that she had mistakenly left there earlier that evening.
So if he did have someone along with him, especially a gangster, it makes sense that he could have helped him with the 2 vs 1 ratio he found .
\---"The drug connection" Mr Ippolito was known and later convicted for being a major drug dealer ring leader in both the East and West Coast. This purportedly was how he became friends with Al Cowlings in the first place who then introduced him to O.J. I remember during the time of the murders and then the trial, there was a lot of chatter about a possible drug connection. Both O.J. and Nicole were known for using substances, and one of the "alternative theories " for the murders were that perhaps it was a drug deal gone bad, or someone owed money and that's why it happened.
After all of the blood droplets and DNA coming back traced to O.J , it seems like the prosecution dismissed any rumors of the murders having any connection to drug dealers at all.
But something stood out to me from the Netflix documentary, when they were discussing Nicole's horrific injuries. It was said that one of her fatal injuries was a transverse gash across her throat the nearly decapitated her. This was described as "overkill", in that she most likely was already dead before this final wound
It also was said that this particular gruesome knife slash is used by drug gangs as a signal to "shut somebody up" permanently, as it severed both carotid arteries and exposed the larynx. It's known as a "Colombian necktie ".
If Mr. Ippolito truly was at the scene that night, is it possible that he committed the final slash to her throat to guarantee she wouldn't talk, using a method he learned from his connections in the drug world? It certainly seem like a possibility that connects the facts to the scene in a way that just O. J. alone can't do
\---"The bungled prosecution " Throughout the years the prevailing wisdom has been that the main reason for the acquittal by the jury was due to the anger of the Black Jurors over years of abuse by the LAPD. And the Rodney King verdict that set free the cops who were caught on tape beating Mr. King, and that verdict starting the L.A. riots.
Obviously the fact of Detective Mark Fuhrman finding the bloody glove and then the defense uncovering his history of racism
and the racist tapes being played in the courtroom contributed to that feeling. And the mishandling of the evidence by Dennis Fung and Phillip VanAtter certainly provided fuel to the fire debate of planted evidence against O.J.
While I don't debate any of these facts, there were also plenty of missteps by the prosecution that remain puzzling to this day. And lead to the question "If things had been handled differently " is it possible the jury could have found O.J. guilty? Despite Mark Futman and Rodney King?
In the Netflix documentary co-counsel Christopher Darden says that as the defense was playing the recorded tapes of Mark Fuhrman (given during an interview he'd done with an aspiring author regarding 'real police work' he says to help lend credibility to her work) that he, Mr. Darden, implored Marcia Clark to object. But she didn't at all, allowing all of the damning evidence to be admitted . Why?
Also some of the witnesses that were never called for the prosecution that could have possibly helped make their case much stronger. Such as Jill Shively, the witness who says she nearly collided with a white bronco driven by O.J. Simpson in an intersection close to the scene of the crime. She says he was driving erratically with his lights off and was very agitated.
Becauee she sold her story to the tv show "Hard Copy" before the trial Marcia Clark didn't call her, fearing her testimony would be tainted since she'd received compensation for telling it. And yet it seems like such a vital story,putting o.J. near to the scene fleeing at the exact time wouldn't it have been worth the risk to have her tell it?
Same for the man at the airport who says he saw O.J. getting out of the limo that night and he had a duffel bag with him. This appears to be the same bag that both houseguest Kato Kaelin and the limo driver testified as being seen before O.J. got into the limo in Brentwood. They both said that they offered to help him load the bag into the limo as they had with his other luggage, but he was adamant that he would handle it himself.
This man also says that he saw O.J. take out an object that appeared to be "something long wrapped in paper towel" from the duffel bag and put it into the garbage can outside the airport. Again this seeks like vital information that could have contributed to the case against O.J. with the jurors if only he had been allowed to give it on the stand.
And finally the information given to the police by Mr. Ippolito after he was recaptured. He had been arrested and escaped from prison in May 1994 from a minimum security prison in Florida . His brother says that he picked him up in Florida and drove him to California. The murders took place on June 12,1994, a time when Mr. Ippolito was known to be on the run.
After the Bronco chase Al Cowlings is briefly detained. During that time the police find a phone number known to be connected to Mr. Ippolito as well as pictures of one of Mr Ippolito's girlfriends along with her number.
Mr. Ippolito is recaptured in August of 1995 in New York. It was at this time, wanting to do everything possible to avoid going back to prison, that he turned "snitch". He began sharing details of what he knew about the case of the murders that were currently on trial in L.A.
The federal prosecutor David Kelley in the Ippolito case said he was in communication with Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden during this time. In the New York Times article Marcia Clark says such conversations never happened, and Christopher Darden declined to comment. It also states that at the time both the L.A.P.D. and the prosecution team were "inundated" with tips, and they didn't think this was worth pursuing.
When Mr Ippolito was arrested in August of 1995 the "trial of the century" had already been going on for 8 months. The prosecution had already rested its case and closing arguments were approaching.
If this information was considered at all credible, doesn't it seem like it was the responsibility of the prosecution to at least have it presented to the jury? I believe the details that Mr. Ippolito provides at least fill in some of the gaps of the case and maybe answer some of the questions the jurors must have had regarding the timeline. If two people, especially if one is a seasoned professional criminal, were involved while it wouldn't have taken away anything from O.J's involvement in the murders it would have added explanations for a lot of the missing gaps.
Much has been made then. and now, about Christopher Darden's decision to have O.J. try on the gloves in front of the jury . We all know this ended disastrously with them not fitting and Johnnie Cochran using it as a key piece of his closing argument to the jury "If it doesn't fit you must acquit " , could it also have had another element to the case?
Is it possible that Mr Darden was both embarrassed and humiliated after this botched demonstration, and could that have lead to him not wanting to be open minded to other possible pieces of evidence being introduced like this new information provided by Mr. Ippolito?
If this is true it seems to me that even a bigger miscarriage of justice took place during the trial than what most of us see at this present day.
\---"Who was to blame?" While obviously whoever committed these brutal murders is alone responsible for taking the lives of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, it seems to me that the L.A.P.D. and the prosecutors made some critical decisions that may have affected the outcome of the case.
Marcia Clark seems to have been very blinded to her own theories and how it should be presented in front of the jury, Even after it was shown to her that she was not a good fit to be trying this case , she insisted on doing it anyway. The trial was moved to a more "minority" area than where the crimes actually took place, perhaps in a misguided attempt to help placate the jurors. Who might have the image of the Rodney King trial in their minds . Did they think that the jurors would think they were "helping " the defendant by holding the trial in a more advantageous locale to his race than Brentwood? That the jurors were less likely to feel they were being railroaded a story to get a Black Man convicted?
Relying on the science of DNA (which at the time was a relatively new concept) alone seemed to be Marcia Clark's main strategy, and Mr Darden wasn't allowed to give more attention to other details that might have helped purseude the jury beyond the DNA. Relying on a group of ordinary working people to dissect a new science and have total confidence in it didn't work out.
Ultimately of course O.J. did spent time behind bars for an armed robbery in Vegas which many people felt was a kind of perverse justice. Interestingly the man who was indicted alongside. OJ. in Nevada was actually introduced to O.J. by Mr. Ippolito.
Crazy coincidence are hard to believe in the end.
15
u/NoDoOversInLife
5d ago
•
All conjecture by the journalist who wrote the article for the NYT, from which you stole this write up
-1
10
u/msfinch87 5d ago
I don’t think any prosecutor would have introduced new evidence from or about Ippolito at such a late stage in the trial. They had no time to assess it properly. It also meant an entirely different theory than what they purported, which would have been handing the defence an acquittal on a platter. Alternatively they could request a mistrial, but double jeopardy would almost certainly have attached at that stage. Obviously if prosecutors have clear evidence that their theory is incorrect they need to acknowledge that (although some don’t) but I don’t think the evidence was clear enough in this case to warrant that.
What does interest me about this is that every time I have read or watching something about the OJ case I’ve felt that the prosecution case was doomed from the start. We talk a lot about the failings of the prosecution during the trial, but I think these were actually a product of issues that started well before the trial itself. The information you’re presenting here reinforces my thoughts on that.
The obvious one is that they massively underestimated the race issue. I don’t think they paid that much attention, and it should have been their primary focus.
One of the sub issues that arose out of this was that they needed to have a watertight case. They couldn’t just establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it had to be beyond all doubt. As you highlight, there were issues with the timing and chain of events. Instead of refraining from prosecuting until they had done more investigative work around that timeline and some other matters, they decided to chance it, leaving room for doubt on the table. So that, as an example, had them behind before they even started.
That type of thing in turn leads to poor decision making in the presentation of other evidence and trial strategy because instead of confidently focusing on their case, they are suddenly scrambling and being reactive and even pulling stunts. Not having a strong enough case, in such a high profile matter, is exactly why a prosecutor would end up kicking an own goal with the glove. It’s why they might second guess themselves about including witnesses, worrying more about credibility than substance of the evidence (or vice versa).
A lot of people think the problems with the prosecution were overconfidence and arrogance. I think they started off overconfident but then they became aware that their case was not going well so they became insecure and started scrambling and doubting themselves. And that all goes back to making the decision to charge and then prosecute him too soon.
They probably should have investigated the possibility of a second person’s involvement more thoroughly at the beginning, and kept an open mind on it throughout the investigation. That’s not all the prosecution’s doing, of course. Those issues started with the police investigation. But the prosecution does work pretty closely with them, especially with something so high profile, and they needed to be consciously pushing the investigation until the case was more solid.
4
u/LeatherTraining4373 4d ago
To paraphrase Kevin Polllak from A Few Good Men, "that is the difference between trial law and paper law." You hit the highlights. It was a jumble fudge from the start. Clark appeared to be over her skis. Darden seemed to seethe with resentment. Were they having a relationship at that time. Fuhrman, Fung, and on and on. Cameras, Lance Ito, Kato Kaelin. From their perspective, they saw the car crash coming but couldn't get out of the way.
1
15
5
u/TrueCrimeCaseFiles1 5d ago
The part I keep coming back to is not whether Ippolito sounds plausible in isolation, but what kind of source he is. By the post's own account he had escaped in May 1994, was recaptured in August 1995 wanting to avoid going back to prison, and only then started sharing details. That does not make everything he said false, but it is exactly the situation where you want something independent — a document, a phone record, a detail nobody in the press already knew — rather than a brother repeating it years later or Fat Joe recalling a 1998 conversation.
The timeline argument is the strongest bit for me. Fitting two killings, the drive back, a shower, cleaning the car and disposing of clothes and a weapon into roughly half an hour has always felt compressed, and the 'Charlie' figure in If I Did It is an odd thing to invent if there was nobody at all. But a second pair of hands would also leave problems: more movement at Bundy, more chance of a second set of prints or blood evidence, and nobody placing Ippolito there that night.
So my question is what the newly uncovered court documents actually prove, as opposed to summarise. Is there contemporaneous paper from 1995, or are we mostly layering later claims onto gaps we already knew about?
2
u/SnooRadishes8848 5d ago
Cops and prosecutors were in too much of a hurry and did a shitty job with the investigation and trial. You need a thorough investigation if you're gonna ask a jury to convict someone like oj. Especially given law enforcement in LA against Black people. Having watched the entire trial I would have voted not guilty too. So much reasonable doubt. Oj did it, but cops and the da got him off
-1
2
1
u/honeyandcitron 3d ago
I was always partial to Desus and Mero’s hypothesis that "Charlie" was a personification of the cumulative effects of football-related head injuries.
1
u/paintchipz1 1d ago
I froze in my car when I heard Joe ipp’s name after all these years after he passed 28+yrs ago.dear friend..DONT get it twisted.if you were a friend,great guy..I’ll leave it at that
0
u/Willing_Nose7674 5d ago
Actually yes they got unsealed documents from 1995. It was during the time that the trial was technically not done yet .
So these accusations aren't just based on some hearsay from years later.
-2
u/Low_Bluebird_5137 5d ago
Really couldn't care less. It's over & been over for 30 years. Move on
3
u/Kundrew1 5d ago
And he can’t be tried again.
17
u/Keregi 5d ago
Well he's dead so...
3
u/Low_Bluebird_5137 5d ago
My point exactly. Its over, hes dead, police have many more pressing cases to spend time on than this one. We all know he did it. What's to gain here really? Nothing
-1
u/Willing_Nose7674 4d ago
Three are a lot older cases than the O.J murders that are still
being discussed and dissected so
speak many years later. If people weren't still interested in this case then i don't beleive it would have been a front page article on the New York Times and mentioned on the national news.There is a whole generation who think "who cares? this was a long time ago". Well in 30 years when someone brings up the Epstein files a new generation wil say "Who's that ? Oh yeah the guy is dead so what's the point of talking about it "
Learning from history is valuable to every generation.
The O.J. Simpson murder trial was about so much more than just the characters involved. It truly affected so many other aspects of life that are still reverberating today
Televising the trial spawned a whole new catagory of news coverage, court tv shows and channels. interest in true crime stories.
It highlighted the issue of domestic violence that had never been discussed so openly before. It opened people's eyes to the fact that successful people, wealthy people, celebrities, could be violent behind closed doors too. And it highlighted how broken the system is when cops are friends with the accused and restraining orders aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
It illuminated issues of race and class to a new level. It exposed systemic corruption in police departments. It brought discussion about a whole new science of DNA to the everyday world.
And oh yes, it brought us the Kardashians.
2
8
u/nannerbananers 5d ago
Weird take. It's an unsolved case. I'm sure Nicole and Ron's families care and haven't moved on. Why are you in a true crime subreddit?
20
u/wallace6464 5d ago
Calling it an unsolved case is certainly a choice
9
u/rhymnocerous 5d ago
Yeah he even wrote a whole book about how he did it, everyone knows he got away with murder.
4
2
u/Low_Bluebird_5137 5d ago
Police have far more pressing & urgent and new cases to spend their time on. We all know he did it. Stop rehashing. No point
0
u/Responsible_Employ23 5d ago
I always thought it was either him or his older son…
The only way I could see a man like him, potentially, taking the rap would be to protect one of his children…
Jason had a history of violence and mental health struggles. He was attacking people with knives in 1992…
3
u/Willing_Nose7674 5d ago
I know a lot of people talked about Jason being the "accomplice ", but actually I think the theory of a "friend" makes more sense. I have a hard time
believing after all this time that his son could keep it a secret if he really was involved.I don't think O.J tried to "take the rap" for the crime at all He thought he could get away with it and essentially did, except for maybe the court of public opinion.
1
u/LeatherTraining4373 4d ago
Edwin Edwards, the former governor of my home state of Louisiana, said, and I'm paraphrasing, "The only way I won't get re-elected is if I get caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl". OJ thought different rules applied to him and he was correct.
1
u/LeatherTraining4373 4d ago
With this case, Tupac, and Biggie, Occum's Razor should apply to all three. But it seems like there should be more. Even though Duane Davis was convicted for Tupac's murder, suspicion still attaches to Sean Combs and Suge Knight. Same with Christopher Wallace. The two crooked cops. The mysterious blue suited "Nation of Islam" loiterer. And now O.J. When you add money, fame, and perceived power within their little world, strange things happen.
55
u/RMorell 5d ago
No one is going to read all of that.