NT: The People v OJ / 30 for 30: OJ

This interview actually made me like OJ more. I’m about to cop the OJ throwback to troll white people.
 
Charlie is his son, I'm 100% convinced. Especially after he said 'Charlie' was spazzing over it and what not.
 
As for everything else,

I can't even begin to explain what I just watched. I'm mind****ed.

Even if we were to take what he said as true, about this confession being hypothetical, realize that that just makes this even more insane. The mother of your kids, your ex wife, is dead. You're not hypothesizing about that, she's legit dead. Why then, would you even hypothetically give an account of how you would have done it if you didn't do it? It makes no sense.

I mean there was a stretch in the interview where he's saying what happened on the night of and he completely forgets that it's "hypothetical." Insane.
 
They still milking this OJ ****. :lol:


White folks act like this is worst thing to ever happen in America. I'm sorry but I laugh every time I hear them say **** like

"The justice system failed"

"How could this happen"


Really? For real? :lol:


OJ didn’t do it.



This is another reason why I still don't think he did it. He woulda had some marks on face and/or body if he did that. I think he paid somebody to do it then walked over to their bodies after it was over.
 
OJ’s hypothetical was really Jason’s true story. OJ was Charlie.

Story makes way more sense with OJ being Charlie.

Accounts for the limited amount blood in the bronco, his finger but otherwise no other wounds, and the idea that his old *** in that state could perform a clean double murder to the point of decapitation w/only a knife is kind of wild.
 
Last edited:
Story makes way more sense with OJ being Charlie.

Accounts for the limited amount blood in the bronco, his finger but otherwise no other wounds, and the idea that his old *** in that state could perform a clean double murder to the point of decapitation w/only a knife is kind of wild.

Yeah there’s no way the murderer isn’t completely drenched in blood after that crime. “Blood everywhere”

Theoretically speaking of course, the blood they found that matches OJ wouldn’t it also match Jason’s since they share DNA?
 
Yeah there’s no way the murderer isn’t completely drenched in blood after that crime. “Blood everywhere”

Theoretically speaking of course, the blood they found that matches OJ wouldn’t it also match Jason’s since they share DNA?

How do we answer this though

If Simpson is acknowledging (as he appears to be) that he was involved in the murder, his blood would be at the scene, too. But what of this supposed accomplice? How could "Charlie" -- or Jason, or anyone else -- have participated in the murder and left no evidence of his presence? There are no footprints, no hair and fiber, no fingerprints of anyone else at the crime scene. That's because there was no accomplice.
 
How do we answer this though

Were the police reports ever released to the public? Serious inquiry.

Only people saying there were no other footprints or anything are the same crooked cops.

OJ strikes me as an idiot that would take of his glove at a crime scene. Wasn’t his son in one branch of the military? That boy knew how to not leave a trace!
 
OJ isn’t the brightest dude. He’s not smart enough to carry out such a crime and get away with it.
 
I still don’t believe OJ did it tho.

LAPD was so dead set on making OJ the suspect. They refuse to do any type of investigation into Nicole’s and Ron’s personal life. I heard the restaurant Ron worked at was a mob spot and Nicole’s sister dated a mob hit man. Also have to wonder why none of their friends took the stand on their behalf outside of Faye.

Watching what i watched yesterday, I don’t think he was capable of pulling a killing like that off.
 
Back
Top Bottom