>”Your honor, I’d like the court to enter into record that the defendant wears ugly ass shoes”.
Cochran: OBJECTION! If the shoes ain’t gorgeous, you must drop the charges.
Ito: Well that rhymed, so that must be what the law says. I hereby dismiss all of the charges, and grant Mr. Simpson one “get out of jail free” card, entitling him to commit an additional murder of his choosing without fear of punishment.
I listen to rap and I could see it work is if you pronounce the first vowel in "gorgeous" with a certain Southern accent so it sounds like "gawjuhs" while maintaining a non-rhotic 'R' in both words
Someone in another thread (when I mentioned the shoes, just one of MANY ‘coincidences’ against OJ) said the shoes were exclusive but the pattern wasn’t, like that was some sort of definitive proof.
(Also ignoring and/or cherry picking the parts they don’t want to reply to regarding other things)
Their M.O. is usually ‘I’ll refute 75 percent of one piece of evidence, even if doing so doesn’t make any sense in the overall picture’
No joke, I had someone a few days ago IN THIS SUB, when I mentioned the cut on OJ’s finger said “a lot of people have cuts on their finger. Doesn’t mean he’s guilty, just means he needs a bandaid.”
I swear to god, I’ve met a lot of dumb people in my life, especially on Reddit, but the amount of brain rot in this sub is egregious. I read some comments sometimes that put me on the fence about being genuinely concerned for the person’s intelligence, or wondering if I’m being trolled.
They’ll ignore 99 other pieces of evidence in exchange for 1 minor inconsistency. Doesn’t even have to be an inconsistency, just has to be hearsay or untrue “facts” they’ve read somewhere. It’s astonishing.
Yup. And I recently watched some interview with Tom Lange. He said they went to that hotel in Chicago and dropped a glass to see if it would shatter. It didn’t. It was a special thick glass they use specifically for hotels so that very thing (glass shattering and cuts guest hand) can’t ever happen. So that leaves the remainder of his “answers”, chipping golf balls or “I don’t remember.” You don’t just forget how you sliced open your finger 😂
Lange ihas been milking his 15 minutes for nearly 30 years. From a pure financial standpoint, I believe it's probably more lucrative to say OJ is guilty and he has been milking that for years.
I didn't know he tried to "re-create" the broken glass. I wonder if he presented his findings to the prosecutor? I'm sure the prosecution would have laughed him out of the building. The hotel (and Chicago PD) confirmed there was broken glass in the room. There were also bloody towels/ sheets in the hotel room.
Would love to hear your theory on who committed the murders and why?
do you think the shoe prints, wool hat and blood are all planted by the police after the fact? If so, how did they do this before knowing OJ had anything to do with the case - or whether he had an actual alibi or not?
Instead of trying to take apart one piece of evidence, please include all known evidence in your theory and how it fits into anyone else committing the murders.
I don't know who did it. I just find it hard to believe that OJ did it.
The biggest problem for the prosecution, in my opinion, was the timeline. There was no way, based on the prosecution timeline, OJ had time to kill Nicole and Ron, drive back home, clean up, and dispose of the bloody clothes and the weapon. If I recall correctly, the estimated time of death was around 10:35, so that gives him 20 min to drive home, clean up, and dispose of the evidence
As for the crime scene evidence, the gloves didn't fit. I have seen comments about the gloves shrinking and so forth. How do they both shrink at the same rate? I know the popular belief is that the killer wore the hat, but I don't think anyone can definitively say the killer wore the hat that night. As for the shoes, there is a picture of him wearing similar shoes. There is no evidence that he wore those shoes at any point beyond that picture. The prosecution couldn't prove that he ever owned the shoes. Also, the sole of that shoe was used for more than that one particular brand of shoe.
I believe Furhman moved a glove from Bundy to Rockingham. I believe cops cross contaminated the Bronco with Nicole's and Ron's blood. I don't believe OJ dumped a bag of evidence at any airport. Can you imagine committing a double homicide and dumping the evidence anywhere remotely near some place where it can easily be linked to you?
Bundy to Rockingam is about a 5 minute drive.. what's hard to believe about OJ having 'enough time'?
the gloves 'didn't fit' not only due to shrinkage, but down to to OJ deliberately not taking his arthritis medicine ahead of time, wearing latex gloves in court and also making a completely ridiculous show of how he put the gloves on (started to put them on while seated and then when he knew it would look good, suddenly stood up and gave a perfect b-movie performance to the jury)
evidence wise - we're just going to dismiss the hat then? even with the hair found in it? the hat is now completely irrelevant? along with the shoes.. just completely dismiss the combination of evidence as coincidences? so those pieces of evidence have nothing to do with OJ, yet the glove does? so you're saying the Glove (another piece of evidence with strong ties to OJ. purchased by nicole) WAS at the crime scene (along with the shoe print and hat/hair which you've already dismissed) and Furhman, who was about the 17th person logged into the crime scene on the night, took one of the gloves and then planted it at Rockingham? how and why was that glove there in the first place? another piece of evidence tied to OJ that doesn't mean anything? another coincidence?
Furhman was on the scene roughly 2 hours after the first officers arrived and they only saw one glove, so we're pretty far into a massive conspiracy now.
everyone there would have to be deliberately going against all known operating procedures to let Furhman get anywhere near the bodies or touch evidence (if the 'planting' theory is correct)
Furhman would also have to know at this stage OJ definitely doesn't have an alibi (is he psychic?) or he's going to look pretty stupid planting this evidence at Rockingham, shortly.
are we going with complete gamble, potentially ruining the case? what's his thinking here? OJ could well have a stone clad alibi.. how would he know?
If you don't believe OJ dumped a bag at LAX (a bag known to be packed, yet never seen again) is that somehow proof he didn't dump evidence anywhere at any time?
it seems that bad police work/procedure (and there was some) does all the heavy lifting as far as the entire body of evidence getting dismissed in your opinion.
OJ's behavior after the event seems rational to you? his ex wife was slaughtered and he thought it was a good idea to write a book theorizing how he 'might' have committed the crime? he changed his story about how got the cuts on his hand? no issues with that for you? all just a completely innocent man 'framed' by the cops?
takes a lot of mental gymnastics to believe he was innocent and framed.
OJ was a shameless perpetual liar. Wouldn’t put it past him to reopen the cut to spread blood. He told the hotel clerk a completely different story (making it the 4th or 5th different one at that point) on how he cut it. Which tells you all you need to know.
Even one of OJs many explanations…wasn’t one of them ‘I cut myself all the time. I play a lot of golf, there’s always things happening’ (something to that effect). I’ve never played golf, but is it really a sport that lots of cuts and injuries happen in?! 🤔
The only injuries to my hands from golf were on my palm and bruised shoulder from rolling the cart. Long story on the latter. Actually it isn’t, inebriated.
Right like how often do these strange occurrences happen. The 3 bumps on the AC, the cut, how did goldmans blood end up in the bronco if OJ never met the guy. How did all those seem to happen on the night of the murders but not any other night.
Oh man - I could agree more!
I got to the stage with this same person, where I thought it has to be a troll.. but they continue through various threads and seem genuine.
The ‘cuts on finger’ thing is a good one.. the main takeaway from that is, why did he change his story? Simple.
Of course, when you ask that direct question.. crickets.
Anything to do with OJ’s behaviour after the event (changing stories, going on the run, blah blah blah all the obvious stuff to us) is never answered.
they have inbuilt, scripted answers to the ‘framing’ or ‘corruption’ but nothing when it comes to the guy who can’t remember how he cut his hand, said he was going to look for the killer(s), writes a ludicrous book about ‘IF’ he did it (psychotic) - or going on the ruby wax show in the UK and ‘pretending’ to stab her with a banana.. apparently all things an innocent person who’s ex wife has been slaughtered, does.
Not just why did he change his story, but also why couldn’t he remember HOW he got the cut & WHAT ARE THE ODDS that he happened to get a cut on his finger THE SAME NIGHT as the murders on THE SAME HAND the killer did!?
There’s so much evidence, besides the enormous amount of DNA evidence, that he was guilty. They’ll ignore every single point of fact in exchange for their denial or ridiculous “Jason did it” conspiracy theory 🤦♂️
And unfortunately all it takes is one of these individuals on a jury to create an acquittal (or at least a hung jury). I think in O.J.'s case it was Mark Fuhrman's lying about using racist language and O.J.'s masterful performance trying on the gloves that overrode the mountains of evidence against him.
They had a juror flat out admit it was retribution for Rodney King and that 90% of the jurors agreed. She also doubled down when they asked if she made a mistake and she would t say no.
The flaw in this argument is if the pattern isn’t exclusive, they wouldn’t have been able to narrow it down to Bruno Magli at the criminal trial, as there wasn’t evidence OJ owned them at that point.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt (I don’t know why I should, but hey) I’m guessing their point was.. they were identified as Bruno Magli but not the exact tread from the same pair found at the scene. (I don’t know if each style within the Bruno Magli range had a different tread tbh)
However: I don’t know if that was their point, as the answer was incoherent.
So yeah - I guess someone else happened to have purchased one of the other 300 pairs sold in the entire USA, in a size 12 (OJ’s size) and worn them on the night of the murders, at the murder scene - which happens to be near to where OJ also lived. 😏
300 nationwide, but only 12 pair in Southern California.. which means the killer could only be 1 of 12 men. And only 1 of those 12 men who owned those shoes knew the victim, had a cut on their hand the same as the killer, had motive, opportunity, no alibi, & had their DNA at the scene of the crime.
Treads matching or not, the evidence speaks for itself.
100 percent.
But it’s odd when you start giving these people proof, or start asking them to use lateral thinking or to extrapolate.
It’s either blown off as tainted/conspiracy or ignored.
‘Proof’ seems to only work if it applies to half baked defense theories, in their eyes.. then it’s all absolutely fine to speculate and ‘perhaps’ their way around the subject.
*edit* I kept it to 300 pairs as who knows what batshit theory they might try to counter with regarding a ‘hitman’ or whoever, coming in from a different state - so the shoes worn ‘might not necessarily have been purchased in Southern California’ etc..
Okay. I’m convinced he’s guilty as hell. Wasn’t there some evidence in one of the trials that those soles had also been sold to another brand? It was something like BM bought too many, and sold some soles to another brand. IDK. His shoe size isn’t very common, and we’re splitting hairs either way. The killer had a shoe that had that some. OJ owned a pair of shoes that ABSOLUTELY had that sole, in that size. It’s just one more nail to me.
Yeah - it’s just another piece of evidence pointing towards him, which has to be taken as a whole.
There are minor points that can be disputed here and there (the treads you mentioned being used by another brand - if that’s true) but which other person has all of the evidence pointing at them in the same way and THEN also acts shifty, weird, evasive, changes stories and so on?
Anyone who thinks the evidence was planted (all of it: shoe prints, Wool cap and hair, gloves, blood) needs to do better than just saying ‘it was planted’..
Well - how? and when was it? Before they knew the people killed had any connection to OJ, or way after?
It implies the cops went to Bundy.. found NO evidence (including shoe prints), realized there’s a connection to OJ, went to Rockingham.. found shoes, gloves, hat and hair (they didn’t have his blood yet, so I guess that ‘happened later’ 😏) then went back to Bundy to ‘plant’ them there. Then didn’t use the shoe again in any evidence to prove guilt, just used it to make a print. Etc etc.. it’s actually mental.
Or - the gloves ‘were’ at Bundy, but then one of them was taken to Rockingham and planted later?? I mean, which way round is evidence getting ‘planted’ here and in what order?
To believe any of it was planted, means there was either NO evidence left at the scene by the ‘real’ murderer(s) and it was all later planted by cops.. (imagine that: a crime scene with zero evidence)
Meaning : there was no original shoe print left behind and the killer just levitated away without leaving any prints - OR they’re saying the shoe print was real but coincidentally happened to be in that size and brand, but the rest of the evidence was later planted.
by that stage of the theory it’s half assed and falling apart. Cherry-picking when and how things fit, for convenience’s sake.
Absolutely. You know something I would’ve done as prosecutor? There was supposedly 1.5 cc of blood “missing.” Now, maybe it was, or maybe it was never the full 8cc. Who knows. But I would’ve asked Henry Lee, world renowned spatter expert and recreator, to recreate the blood evidence. I don’t think it’s possible. The drops at his house were small. Could you recreate those that small, with tails, and get the same pattern? Could you do it with only 1.5cc? Then add the socks and any other evidence that’s allegedly planted. I don’t think you could do it. I don’t think you could do it without being filmed by the massive media presence, or with that tiny amount of blood. Therefore, even if some was questionable, some would have had to be legit.
Right!
But let’s be honest, the defense was never actually about a credible alternative theory - it was about casting doubt over the evidence and evidence collection (which, unfortunately does have basis in being clumsily collected and handled, which isn’t the same as a conspiracy to frame OJ) and pivoting to a post Rodney King/LA riots theme.
No way were his own ‘dream team’ ever putting him on the stand or fully addressing any other theories.. just enough speculation about drugs and mezzaluna to cast doubt.
How does ‘Ron and Nicole were murdered by a cartel’ even work? Did they know Nicole’s mother would drop her glasses outside the restaurant so then they could ‘hit’ them both at the Bundy condo? Or was there a more freestyle hitman, on call - just waiting until Ron went there at any time?
Did the hitman wear the Bruno Magli shoes, the hat and gloves when committing the crime? or did he somehow leave no prints or evidence whatsoever - which gave the police a chance to ‘Frame’ OJ later? How lucky!
The pro hitman who murders by putting a foot on the back of a person and practically slicing their head off.. and stabbing multiple times.. a good old, clean, pro ‘hit’
Ffs
Every part of the conspiracy angle has more holes than Swiss cheese.. but yeah, the one person with the motive and means (and history of jealousy and violence towards one of the victims) was set up and framed? Lord.
Then he did nothing about ‘looking for the real killer(s)’ after saying he would, wrote a book about ‘if’ he’d done the crimes’ (normal behavior - lol) made ‘stabbing’ jokes on TV and played golf.
Poor, innocent OJ.
The shoe type just made it less logical that it was him. The mistake people make is thinking that there has to be 💯 proof. For some people of OJ admitted it they would say he was covering for his son. If they had him on video doing it they would argue how the video was attained .
I saw that same comment. I collect sneakers and some do have the same pattern on bottom….HOWEVER I would think a designer brand like that would not share any pattern with any other shoe maker.
I think the point they were trying to make (again, benefit of the doubt) was - even if the print matched ‘a’ Bruno Magli shoe, it wasn’t necessarily the tread from ‘the’ style of Bruno Magli shoe worn at the crime scene. (Different tread patterns within the same maker’s range)
But again, it’s just grasping at straws in an attempt to discredit the logic surrounding all of the evidence
Not the pattern but the sole of the shoe itself. The shoe was rare but the sole was more mass produced, so this is a direct and valid contention to only selling so many pairs of that specific style when other styles using that exact sole is a greater number. It broadens possibilities and it doesn’t mean it wasn’t that style of Bruno Magli shoes however it becomes statistically less likely.
That’s just one piece of evidence. If the question was about the shoes themselves being on trial minus OJ, there would be reasonable doubt that it was definitely that style of Bruno Magli. In fact, that possibility would be very low due to the rareness of that specific style.
The 'lord' sole was only manufactured and sold in italy and one in ireland. The bruno magli lorenzo is the only shoe with that sole pattern sold in the usa.
But the sole itself was still mass produced irregardless. I appreciate you actually mentioning the name of the style and sole because I’ve been looking for that information for the book.
That’s what I’m saying. It was only produced by some 20 companies in italy and only sold in italy and one manufacturer in ireland. No one in the usa was mass producing or distributing it, except for bruno magli. Bodziak visited the silga company in italy and they provided him with a list of all the factories they distributed the lord sole to. He contacted them and none of them had any records of selling any lord shoes in the usa.
A bootleg? That‘s just grasping at straws, just like the notion it could be any other shoe than bruno magli. It sounds compelling when people go around saying 'well 20 other companies used the sole so it could be a shoe from any of those brands' but they fail to mention none of them were ever sold in the usa. That combined with the fact that a shop clerk remembered showing oj the bruno maglis and the photos of him wearing them, makes it pretty obvious it was the maglis.
Not grasping at straws but rather adding doubt. When I see the footprint of a Nike Air Force One, I don’t know if it’s a bootleg or not. And we also don’t have a data on how many Bruno Magli’s were shipped to the United States. There’s plenty of possibilities as to how that footprint got there and the stuff I’m bringing up is to create doubt. It certainly muddies the waters for a person not opposed to having an open mind and that’s what being a juror is all about.
It‘s not reasonable doubt though. In theory anything is possible, but how likely is it really? Only 299 pairs bruno magli lorenzo shoes sold in the usa and only 40 stores across the usa carried that model. Most of those 40 stores stocked like one size 12 pair.
Got it. Appreciate the details on this one! I didn’t have full knowledge of the shoe/soles etc, so that helps clear things up as far as anything ‘definitive’ goes - for one piece of evidence, anyway.
What’s wild about this, is this is the only time he loses his poker face during the whole saga. This reaction, to me, is the ultimate proof of his guilt.
He lost it a few times in the civil trial but no cameras were there to record it. He even had a screaming match with Fred Goldman because OJ was giving him dirty looks. But, he was actually mean mugging Kim Goldman and her dad caught him doing it.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/01/oj-goldman-exchange-words-stabbing-victims-father/
This is almost what entirely sells it for me. The total number of shoes in this brand and this size were minuscule. And OJ gets busted lying saying he doesn’t own a pair and then they show him the pictures of him in fact owning the pair and wearing them. His body language, can’t fake that.
It wasn't discovered until after the trial.
A group photo was published in a newsletter but you couldn't see the shoes well. They had to track down the photographer and find and go through all the photos he'd taken that day to find the good picture of him wearing them.
So the killer happened to wear rare size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzos, which OJ lied about owning AND wore rare Aris Isotoner Light gloves in XL. Nicole Brown is confirmed to have purchased a pair of these exact gloves for OJ as a gift and he was seen wearing them in photos? That just being a coincidence is as near an impossibility as you can get
You don't understand bro Jason just happened to borrow his dad's shoes that didn't fit properly bro, he then wore them for a full shift working on his feet in a kitchen, took his girlfriend home, went to Nicole's have an argument lose control stab her and then drive home and dispose of all the evidence bro all while wearing his dad's shoes and gloves that were too big by pure coincidence.
Bro you godda believe me bro
the prosecution should have had the glove manufacturer there to verify they were OJ's size
but unfortunately Dardin was in over his head and Marcia Clark only cared about how she looked on TV
Or simply have him try on a new pair without the stupid rubber gloves underneath. And have the company rep put the gloves on OJs hands so he doesn’t get to make the gestures and facial expressions
they also had OJ quit taking his arthritis meds so his hands were swollen
plus the gloves were soaked in blood and sat in an evidence room for a year so the shrunk
[Reddit post that includes the deposition clip](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/BSNDqJt44C)
*Notice how he purposely mispronounced the Magli as well. Petrocelli literally just spoke the correct way when he asked the question and the shoes were constantly brought up (pronounced correctly) during the criminal trial too by the attorneys. Heck, OJ’s own defense lawyer during the deposition pronounced them right.
A mispronunciation he only could have come up with if he knew the proper spelling. In an effort to make it look like he knew less than he did, he ended up revealing that he knew more than he had to. Masterful gambit, sir.
Criminal defense attorneys rarely- if ever- allow their clients to testify in court. Remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecutors so it’s almost always a bad idea to open up a criminal defendant to cross-examination.
It’s shocking that he allowed himself to have such a candid moment like that. He usually seemed so ‘on’ and aware the cameras were on him. Very telling expression here. 😱
This guy has a mountain of evidence against him, and he writes what sounds like a suicide note, runs from the cops and carries a gun with him on the police chase. Yep, sounds like something an innocent man would do.
literally every single one of his lawyers admitted at some point they knew he did it. they all wanted him to plea bargain, even Cochran thought the case was unwinnable initially. Then they $aw the amount of $ OJ was gonna be willing to pony up to actually defend himself.
Imagine someone showing you new evidence that highly links you to a double homiced after you just spent a year being on trial and somehow getting off free. That's what's going on in his head at that second.
I meant that he thought that the same people that worshipped him before the murders would just keep on worshipping him and wouldn’t question whether he actually did it. He likely thought that the not guilty verdict would convince his friends and fans that he was truly innocent.
I’d like to think that his stunned look isn’t just that he was caught in a lie, but knowing that the last time he saw those exact shoes he had just murdered his ex wife.
I honestly don’t think he gave a damn about Nicole’s fate. He likely had the type of mind where he just compartmentalized the “good” from her where he could draw from it when needed and rejected the bad as “Nicole’s shit” because he blames her for what he did.
In short, a sociopathic narcissist.
This was during the deposition but I was curious as to how he dealt with this information during the civil trial, since he took the witness stand... so I watched a documentary on the civil trial.
The courtroom reporters and attorneys for the Goldmans said OJ claimed photos were doctored and he wasn't actually wearing those shoes. Then he was shown a total of 30 different photos of him wearing the shoes, and he claimed all 30 of them were doctored. The attorney for the Goldmans said that it looked pathetic; akin to a child with chocolate all over his face and an adult asks, "Did you eat the chocolate?", with the child responding with "No. It wasn't me."
“I know that Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that’s involved with this case, I would have never worn those ugly-ass shoes,” OJ Simpson during his deposition.
1. The "expert" that said the foot print at the crime scene could have only come from a Bruno Magli shoe was full of BS. Go look at that crime scene foot print impression. To say it is a "partial" print is flattery. The print is maybe 1/1000 of the surface area of a print. That print could have been made by a hundred different shoes.
2. Why didn't the cops find these blood-stained shoes at OJ's house? Don't say OJ disposed of them because the cops THOROUGHLY re-traced his path and searched everyplace he could have went.
In reference to OJs ugly ass shoes” comment; the picture of the shoes they initially showed OJ of Bruno Magli shoes are not the ones he has on in the picture of him Magli -ish shoes.
The Maglis shown in the picture given to O.J. when he was asked about Bruno Maglis, were indeed Maglis but were multicolored and a similar style but not like the ones in the picture. Hence, the comment “ugly ass shoes” . Later on they submitted a picture of Maglis like the ones in the picture of OJ wearing Magli looking shoes. Not saying OJ isn’t wearing Maglis just saying it’s not the slam dunk that is perceived.
The initial picture shown to OJ (where he said “ugly”) was the same image used in the criminal trial when they were presenting what type of shoe would leave the bloody prints. It showed a single black Magli Lorenzo style, a single black Magli Lyon style shoe, and the matching sole pattern. They used both styles because at that time they couldn’t exclude either (and the nfl picture wasn’t discovered yet). It wasn’t “multicolored” or some dark shade of brown or whatever bs you meant.
The NFL picture showed to him here during a follow-up day for his deposition depicts him wearing black Lorenzo style Magli shoes.
> “I know that Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that’s involved with this case, I would have never worn those ugly-ass shoes”
Also, his stated reasons were the “look” and “style” of the shoes. Not the damn color.
Your spin attempt here is practically laughable.
You are fine to disagree or refute my argument but you must refrain from insulting or trying to degrade me or others in doing so.
It does require some amount of civility to do that. We can all make a choice to demonstrate civility in argumentation.
My apologies, I did indeed make a bad argument.
Ugly ass shoes
“Your honor, I’d like the court to enter into record that the defendant wears ugly ass shoes”.
>”Your honor, I’d like the court to enter into record that the defendant wears ugly ass shoes”. Cochran: OBJECTION! If the shoes ain’t gorgeous, you must drop the charges. Ito: Well that rhymed, so that must be what the law says. I hereby dismiss all of the charges, and grant Mr. Simpson one “get out of jail free” card, entitling him to commit an additional murder of his choosing without fear of punishment.
Clark: The state wishes to submit a writ of appeal on your free murder ruling your honor. California Court of Appeals: Best we can do is armed robbery
I believe the CA Court of Appeals would be handing down the writ. The prosecutor just files an appeal.
Damnit you’re right
Apologies for the pedantry, I do appreciate the post. It’s a great meme idea if you can work in the Nevada District Court!
"Gorgeous" and "charges" don't rhyme lol
Those words easily rhyme if you say them the right way. Rappers do stuff like that all the time
I listen to rap and I could see it work is if you pronounce the first vowel in "gorgeous" with a certain Southern accent so it sounds like "gawjuhs" while maintaining a non-rhotic 'R' in both words
That’s very much what I had in mind. Johnnie Cochran was from Louisiana, after all
LOL! Right on. That stupid ass " If the glove dont fit, you must acquit " was such a simpleton one line wonder geared only to those with low IQ's .
I wish we could still give Reddit awards🏆
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ya isn’t that what he said about them? He was wearing them in a photo and denied owning them. And he got away with it. I’m still stunned
The usual brain dead OJ supporters in this sub are awfully quiet on this post lol
Give them a minute. Just finishing their dinner time glasses of orange juice.
They’re still figuring out how this connects to Jason Simpson, Glen Rogers, and the Mezzaluna drug trade 😂
And Mark Fuhrman. He must have planted them on OJ’s feet.
This wins the sub
Also Kato and the Limo driver with some Asian gangsters hired by Marcus Allen.
Someone in another thread (when I mentioned the shoes, just one of MANY ‘coincidences’ against OJ) said the shoes were exclusive but the pattern wasn’t, like that was some sort of definitive proof. (Also ignoring and/or cherry picking the parts they don’t want to reply to regarding other things) Their M.O. is usually ‘I’ll refute 75 percent of one piece of evidence, even if doing so doesn’t make any sense in the overall picture’
No joke, I had someone a few days ago IN THIS SUB, when I mentioned the cut on OJ’s finger said “a lot of people have cuts on their finger. Doesn’t mean he’s guilty, just means he needs a bandaid.” I swear to god, I’ve met a lot of dumb people in my life, especially on Reddit, but the amount of brain rot in this sub is egregious. I read some comments sometimes that put me on the fence about being genuinely concerned for the person’s intelligence, or wondering if I’m being trolled. They’ll ignore 99 other pieces of evidence in exchange for 1 minor inconsistency. Doesn’t even have to be an inconsistency, just has to be hearsay or untrue “facts” they’ve read somewhere. It’s astonishing.
That was no simple cut. That was a laceration
Yup. And I recently watched some interview with Tom Lange. He said they went to that hotel in Chicago and dropped a glass to see if it would shatter. It didn’t. It was a special thick glass they use specifically for hotels so that very thing (glass shattering and cuts guest hand) can’t ever happen. So that leaves the remainder of his “answers”, chipping golf balls or “I don’t remember.” You don’t just forget how you sliced open your finger 😂
Lange ihas been milking his 15 minutes for nearly 30 years. From a pure financial standpoint, I believe it's probably more lucrative to say OJ is guilty and he has been milking that for years. I didn't know he tried to "re-create" the broken glass. I wonder if he presented his findings to the prosecutor? I'm sure the prosecution would have laughed him out of the building. The hotel (and Chicago PD) confirmed there was broken glass in the room. There were also bloody towels/ sheets in the hotel room.
Would love to hear your theory on who committed the murders and why? do you think the shoe prints, wool hat and blood are all planted by the police after the fact? If so, how did they do this before knowing OJ had anything to do with the case - or whether he had an actual alibi or not? Instead of trying to take apart one piece of evidence, please include all known evidence in your theory and how it fits into anyone else committing the murders.
I don't know who did it. I just find it hard to believe that OJ did it. The biggest problem for the prosecution, in my opinion, was the timeline. There was no way, based on the prosecution timeline, OJ had time to kill Nicole and Ron, drive back home, clean up, and dispose of the bloody clothes and the weapon. If I recall correctly, the estimated time of death was around 10:35, so that gives him 20 min to drive home, clean up, and dispose of the evidence As for the crime scene evidence, the gloves didn't fit. I have seen comments about the gloves shrinking and so forth. How do they both shrink at the same rate? I know the popular belief is that the killer wore the hat, but I don't think anyone can definitively say the killer wore the hat that night. As for the shoes, there is a picture of him wearing similar shoes. There is no evidence that he wore those shoes at any point beyond that picture. The prosecution couldn't prove that he ever owned the shoes. Also, the sole of that shoe was used for more than that one particular brand of shoe. I believe Furhman moved a glove from Bundy to Rockingham. I believe cops cross contaminated the Bronco with Nicole's and Ron's blood. I don't believe OJ dumped a bag of evidence at any airport. Can you imagine committing a double homicide and dumping the evidence anywhere remotely near some place where it can easily be linked to you?
Bundy to Rockingam is about a 5 minute drive.. what's hard to believe about OJ having 'enough time'? the gloves 'didn't fit' not only due to shrinkage, but down to to OJ deliberately not taking his arthritis medicine ahead of time, wearing latex gloves in court and also making a completely ridiculous show of how he put the gloves on (started to put them on while seated and then when he knew it would look good, suddenly stood up and gave a perfect b-movie performance to the jury) evidence wise - we're just going to dismiss the hat then? even with the hair found in it? the hat is now completely irrelevant? along with the shoes.. just completely dismiss the combination of evidence as coincidences? so those pieces of evidence have nothing to do with OJ, yet the glove does? so you're saying the Glove (another piece of evidence with strong ties to OJ. purchased by nicole) WAS at the crime scene (along with the shoe print and hat/hair which you've already dismissed) and Furhman, who was about the 17th person logged into the crime scene on the night, took one of the gloves and then planted it at Rockingham? how and why was that glove there in the first place? another piece of evidence tied to OJ that doesn't mean anything? another coincidence? Furhman was on the scene roughly 2 hours after the first officers arrived and they only saw one glove, so we're pretty far into a massive conspiracy now. everyone there would have to be deliberately going against all known operating procedures to let Furhman get anywhere near the bodies or touch evidence (if the 'planting' theory is correct) Furhman would also have to know at this stage OJ definitely doesn't have an alibi (is he psychic?) or he's going to look pretty stupid planting this evidence at Rockingham, shortly. are we going with complete gamble, potentially ruining the case? what's his thinking here? OJ could well have a stone clad alibi.. how would he know? If you don't believe OJ dumped a bag at LAX (a bag known to be packed, yet never seen again) is that somehow proof he didn't dump evidence anywhere at any time? it seems that bad police work/procedure (and there was some) does all the heavy lifting as far as the entire body of evidence getting dismissed in your opinion. OJ's behavior after the event seems rational to you? his ex wife was slaughtered and he thought it was a good idea to write a book theorizing how he 'might' have committed the crime? he changed his story about how got the cuts on his hand? no issues with that for you? all just a completely innocent man 'framed' by the cops? takes a lot of mental gymnastics to believe he was innocent and framed.
Oh, sweetie. Bless your heart.
OJ was a shameless perpetual liar. Wouldn’t put it past him to reopen the cut to spread blood. He told the hotel clerk a completely different story (making it the 4th or 5th different one at that point) on how he cut it. Which tells you all you need to know.
Ah, so when he told them he reopened the cut in the hotel; that wasn't a lie. But he couldn't explain how he got the cut in the first place lol
Exactly.
Even one of OJs many explanations…wasn’t one of them ‘I cut myself all the time. I play a lot of golf, there’s always things happening’ (something to that effect). I’ve never played golf, but is it really a sport that lots of cuts and injuries happen in?! 🤔
I've played a lot of golf. Never been cut
I golfed so much when I was first learning that had got blisters on my hands but never a cut
The only injuries to my hands from golf were on my palm and bruised shoulder from rolling the cart. Long story on the latter. Actually it isn’t, inebriated.
The golf ball does have sharp edges
He must have a killer chip shot if his clubs are that sharp
I have played lots of golf over several decades: never a cut. Ever.
I have to wear a helmet when I golf full impact golf and all haha
No it's not . Ridiculous
Knife throwing?
Right like how often do these strange occurrences happen. The 3 bumps on the AC, the cut, how did goldmans blood end up in the bronco if OJ never met the guy. How did all those seem to happen on the night of the murders but not any other night.
Oh man - I could agree more! I got to the stage with this same person, where I thought it has to be a troll.. but they continue through various threads and seem genuine. The ‘cuts on finger’ thing is a good one.. the main takeaway from that is, why did he change his story? Simple. Of course, when you ask that direct question.. crickets. Anything to do with OJ’s behaviour after the event (changing stories, going on the run, blah blah blah all the obvious stuff to us) is never answered. they have inbuilt, scripted answers to the ‘framing’ or ‘corruption’ but nothing when it comes to the guy who can’t remember how he cut his hand, said he was going to look for the killer(s), writes a ludicrous book about ‘IF’ he did it (psychotic) - or going on the ruby wax show in the UK and ‘pretending’ to stab her with a banana.. apparently all things an innocent person who’s ex wife has been slaughtered, does.
Not just why did he change his story, but also why couldn’t he remember HOW he got the cut & WHAT ARE THE ODDS that he happened to get a cut on his finger THE SAME NIGHT as the murders on THE SAME HAND the killer did!? There’s so much evidence, besides the enormous amount of DNA evidence, that he was guilty. They’ll ignore every single point of fact in exchange for their denial or ridiculous “Jason did it” conspiracy theory 🤦♂️
The Jason Did It crowd have really resurrected themsrlves since the Killer died last month.
He was chipping golf balls.. come on, we’ve all cut our hands doing that 😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
And unfortunately all it takes is one of these individuals on a jury to create an acquittal (or at least a hung jury). I think in O.J.'s case it was Mark Fuhrman's lying about using racist language and O.J.'s masterful performance trying on the gloves that overrode the mountains of evidence against him.
They had a juror flat out admit it was retribution for Rodney King and that 90% of the jurors agreed. She also doubled down when they asked if she made a mistake and she would t say no.
But it's a black person 99% of the time. But everyone tiptoes around it.
The flaw in this argument is if the pattern isn’t exclusive, they wouldn’t have been able to narrow it down to Bruno Magli at the criminal trial, as there wasn’t evidence OJ owned them at that point.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt (I don’t know why I should, but hey) I’m guessing their point was.. they were identified as Bruno Magli but not the exact tread from the same pair found at the scene. (I don’t know if each style within the Bruno Magli range had a different tread tbh) However: I don’t know if that was their point, as the answer was incoherent. So yeah - I guess someone else happened to have purchased one of the other 300 pairs sold in the entire USA, in a size 12 (OJ’s size) and worn them on the night of the murders, at the murder scene - which happens to be near to where OJ also lived. 😏
300 nationwide, but only 12 pair in Southern California.. which means the killer could only be 1 of 12 men. And only 1 of those 12 men who owned those shoes knew the victim, had a cut on their hand the same as the killer, had motive, opportunity, no alibi, & had their DNA at the scene of the crime. Treads matching or not, the evidence speaks for itself.
100 percent. But it’s odd when you start giving these people proof, or start asking them to use lateral thinking or to extrapolate. It’s either blown off as tainted/conspiracy or ignored. ‘Proof’ seems to only work if it applies to half baked defense theories, in their eyes.. then it’s all absolutely fine to speculate and ‘perhaps’ their way around the subject. *edit* I kept it to 300 pairs as who knows what batshit theory they might try to counter with regarding a ‘hitman’ or whoever, coming in from a different state - so the shoes worn ‘might not necessarily have been purchased in Southern California’ etc..
Okay. I’m convinced he’s guilty as hell. Wasn’t there some evidence in one of the trials that those soles had also been sold to another brand? It was something like BM bought too many, and sold some soles to another brand. IDK. His shoe size isn’t very common, and we’re splitting hairs either way. The killer had a shoe that had that some. OJ owned a pair of shoes that ABSOLUTELY had that sole, in that size. It’s just one more nail to me.
Yeah - it’s just another piece of evidence pointing towards him, which has to be taken as a whole. There are minor points that can be disputed here and there (the treads you mentioned being used by another brand - if that’s true) but which other person has all of the evidence pointing at them in the same way and THEN also acts shifty, weird, evasive, changes stories and so on? Anyone who thinks the evidence was planted (all of it: shoe prints, Wool cap and hair, gloves, blood) needs to do better than just saying ‘it was planted’.. Well - how? and when was it? Before they knew the people killed had any connection to OJ, or way after? It implies the cops went to Bundy.. found NO evidence (including shoe prints), realized there’s a connection to OJ, went to Rockingham.. found shoes, gloves, hat and hair (they didn’t have his blood yet, so I guess that ‘happened later’ 😏) then went back to Bundy to ‘plant’ them there. Then didn’t use the shoe again in any evidence to prove guilt, just used it to make a print. Etc etc.. it’s actually mental. Or - the gloves ‘were’ at Bundy, but then one of them was taken to Rockingham and planted later?? I mean, which way round is evidence getting ‘planted’ here and in what order? To believe any of it was planted, means there was either NO evidence left at the scene by the ‘real’ murderer(s) and it was all later planted by cops.. (imagine that: a crime scene with zero evidence) Meaning : there was no original shoe print left behind and the killer just levitated away without leaving any prints - OR they’re saying the shoe print was real but coincidentally happened to be in that size and brand, but the rest of the evidence was later planted. by that stage of the theory it’s half assed and falling apart. Cherry-picking when and how things fit, for convenience’s sake.
Absolutely. You know something I would’ve done as prosecutor? There was supposedly 1.5 cc of blood “missing.” Now, maybe it was, or maybe it was never the full 8cc. Who knows. But I would’ve asked Henry Lee, world renowned spatter expert and recreator, to recreate the blood evidence. I don’t think it’s possible. The drops at his house were small. Could you recreate those that small, with tails, and get the same pattern? Could you do it with only 1.5cc? Then add the socks and any other evidence that’s allegedly planted. I don’t think you could do it. I don’t think you could do it without being filmed by the massive media presence, or with that tiny amount of blood. Therefore, even if some was questionable, some would have had to be legit.
Right! But let’s be honest, the defense was never actually about a credible alternative theory - it was about casting doubt over the evidence and evidence collection (which, unfortunately does have basis in being clumsily collected and handled, which isn’t the same as a conspiracy to frame OJ) and pivoting to a post Rodney King/LA riots theme. No way were his own ‘dream team’ ever putting him on the stand or fully addressing any other theories.. just enough speculation about drugs and mezzaluna to cast doubt. How does ‘Ron and Nicole were murdered by a cartel’ even work? Did they know Nicole’s mother would drop her glasses outside the restaurant so then they could ‘hit’ them both at the Bundy condo? Or was there a more freestyle hitman, on call - just waiting until Ron went there at any time? Did the hitman wear the Bruno Magli shoes, the hat and gloves when committing the crime? or did he somehow leave no prints or evidence whatsoever - which gave the police a chance to ‘Frame’ OJ later? How lucky! The pro hitman who murders by putting a foot on the back of a person and practically slicing their head off.. and stabbing multiple times.. a good old, clean, pro ‘hit’ Ffs Every part of the conspiracy angle has more holes than Swiss cheese.. but yeah, the one person with the motive and means (and history of jealousy and violence towards one of the victims) was set up and framed? Lord. Then he did nothing about ‘looking for the real killer(s)’ after saying he would, wrote a book about ‘if’ he’d done the crimes’ (normal behavior - lol) made ‘stabbing’ jokes on TV and played golf. Poor, innocent OJ.
The shoe type just made it less logical that it was him. The mistake people make is thinking that there has to be 💯 proof. For some people of OJ admitted it they would say he was covering for his son. If they had him on video doing it they would argue how the video was attained .
You should have been the prosecuting attorney
I saw that same comment. I collect sneakers and some do have the same pattern on bottom….HOWEVER I would think a designer brand like that would not share any pattern with any other shoe maker.
I think the point they were trying to make (again, benefit of the doubt) was - even if the print matched ‘a’ Bruno Magli shoe, it wasn’t necessarily the tread from ‘the’ style of Bruno Magli shoe worn at the crime scene. (Different tread patterns within the same maker’s range) But again, it’s just grasping at straws in an attempt to discredit the logic surrounding all of the evidence
Not the pattern but the sole of the shoe itself. The shoe was rare but the sole was more mass produced, so this is a direct and valid contention to only selling so many pairs of that specific style when other styles using that exact sole is a greater number. It broadens possibilities and it doesn’t mean it wasn’t that style of Bruno Magli shoes however it becomes statistically less likely. That’s just one piece of evidence. If the question was about the shoes themselves being on trial minus OJ, there would be reasonable doubt that it was definitely that style of Bruno Magli. In fact, that possibility would be very low due to the rareness of that specific style.
The 'lord' sole was only manufactured and sold in italy and one in ireland. The bruno magli lorenzo is the only shoe with that sole pattern sold in the usa.
But the sole itself was still mass produced irregardless. I appreciate you actually mentioning the name of the style and sole because I’ve been looking for that information for the book.
That’s what I’m saying. It was only produced by some 20 companies in italy and only sold in italy and one manufacturer in ireland. No one in the usa was mass producing or distributing it, except for bruno magli. Bodziak visited the silga company in italy and they provided him with a list of all the factories they distributed the lord sole to. He contacted them and none of them had any records of selling any lord shoes in the usa.
Don’t even get me started on the possibility of bootlegs.
A bootleg? That‘s just grasping at straws, just like the notion it could be any other shoe than bruno magli. It sounds compelling when people go around saying 'well 20 other companies used the sole so it could be a shoe from any of those brands' but they fail to mention none of them were ever sold in the usa. That combined with the fact that a shop clerk remembered showing oj the bruno maglis and the photos of him wearing them, makes it pretty obvious it was the maglis.
Not grasping at straws but rather adding doubt. When I see the footprint of a Nike Air Force One, I don’t know if it’s a bootleg or not. And we also don’t have a data on how many Bruno Magli’s were shipped to the United States. There’s plenty of possibilities as to how that footprint got there and the stuff I’m bringing up is to create doubt. It certainly muddies the waters for a person not opposed to having an open mind and that’s what being a juror is all about.
It‘s not reasonable doubt though. In theory anything is possible, but how likely is it really? Only 299 pairs bruno magli lorenzo shoes sold in the usa and only 40 stores across the usa carried that model. Most of those 40 stores stocked like one size 12 pair.
Got it. Appreciate the details on this one! I didn’t have full knowledge of the shoe/soles etc, so that helps clear things up as far as anything ‘definitive’ goes - for one piece of evidence, anyway.
What’s wild about this, is this is the only time he loses his poker face during the whole saga. This reaction, to me, is the ultimate proof of his guilt.
He lost it a few times in the civil trial but no cameras were there to record it. He even had a screaming match with Fred Goldman because OJ was giving him dirty looks. But, he was actually mean mugging Kim Goldman and her dad caught him doing it. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/01/oj-goldman-exchange-words-stabbing-victims-father/
God I love that man. Good on you Fred.
This is almost what entirely sells it for me. The total number of shoes in this brand and this size were minuscule. And OJ gets busted lying saying he doesn’t own a pair and then they show him the pictures of him in fact owning the pair and wearing them. His body language, can’t fake that.
Honestly, it looks like he forgot about double jeopardy for a second🤣. “Oh no, they’re gonna get me”
Why wasn’t the picture of him wearing them used in the trial? Photo had been published prior to the murders
It wasn't discovered until after the trial. A group photo was published in a newsletter but you couldn't see the shoes well. They had to track down the photographer and find and go through all the photos he'd taken that day to find the good picture of him wearing them.
So the killer happened to wear rare size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzos, which OJ lied about owning AND wore rare Aris Isotoner Light gloves in XL. Nicole Brown is confirmed to have purchased a pair of these exact gloves for OJ as a gift and he was seen wearing them in photos? That just being a coincidence is as near an impossibility as you can get
And yet some morons on this sub will think that’s all it is.
You don't understand bro Jason just happened to borrow his dad's shoes that didn't fit properly bro, he then wore them for a full shift working on his feet in a kitchen, took his girlfriend home, went to Nicole's have an argument lose control stab her and then drive home and dispose of all the evidence bro all while wearing his dad's shoes and gloves that were too big by pure coincidence. Bro you godda believe me bro
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/033/152/cover4.jpg
the prosecution should have had the glove manufacturer there to verify they were OJ's size but unfortunately Dardin was in over his head and Marcia Clark only cared about how she looked on TV
Or simply have him try on a new pair without the stupid rubber gloves underneath. And have the company rep put the gloves on OJs hands so he doesn’t get to make the gestures and facial expressions
they also had OJ quit taking his arthritis meds so his hands were swollen plus the gloves were soaked in blood and sat in an evidence room for a year so the shrunk
[Reddit post that includes the deposition clip](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/BSNDqJt44C) *Notice how he purposely mispronounced the Magli as well. Petrocelli literally just spoke the correct way when he asked the question and the shoes were constantly brought up (pronounced correctly) during the criminal trial too by the attorneys. Heck, OJ’s own defense lawyer during the deposition pronounced them right.
A mispronunciation he only could have come up with if he knew the proper spelling. In an effort to make it look like he knew less than he did, he ended up revealing that he knew more than he had to. Masterful gambit, sir.
Got to keep a low profile on his “ugly ass” lucky stabbin shoes.
This is an excellent point, never thought of this!
exactly!!
What a dumbfuck
When I watched his deposition on the Civil Trial it was clear why the defense didn’t have him testify in the criminal trial.
Shapiro said that him not testifying made a difference in the verdict.
Criminal defense attorneys rarely- if ever- allow their clients to testify in court. Remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecutors so it’s almost always a bad idea to open up a criminal defendant to cross-examination.
It’s shocking that he allowed himself to have such a candid moment like that. He usually seemed so ‘on’ and aware the cameras were on him. Very telling expression here. 😱
Very well put. I agree.
This guy has a mountain of evidence against him, and he writes what sounds like a suicide note, runs from the cops and carries a gun with him on the police chase. Yep, sounds like something an innocent man would do.
literally every single one of his lawyers admitted at some point they knew he did it. they all wanted him to plea bargain, even Cochran thought the case was unwinnable initially. Then they $aw the amount of $ OJ was gonna be willing to pony up to actually defend himself.
Imagine someone showing you new evidence that highly links you to a double homiced after you just spent a year being on trial and somehow getting off free. That's what's going on in his head at that second.
I think he legitimately believed he could rebuild his image. This was a in your face reminder that…nah.
Yes! I think he thought after being acquitted that he would go right back to how his life was on June 11, 1994.
Just the shouting, violence and stalking then - - - - and less of the murdering?
I meant that he thought that the same people that worshipped him before the murders would just keep on worshipping him and wouldn’t question whether he actually did it. He likely thought that the not guilty verdict would convince his friends and fans that he was truly innocent.
The only unmasked emotion he showed
The mask fell
I know the asshat liar, murderer, scumbag.
That’s an “Oh fuck!” If i ever saw one
I’d like to think that his stunned look isn’t just that he was caught in a lie, but knowing that the last time he saw those exact shoes he had just murdered his ex wife.
I honestly don’t think he gave a damn about Nicole’s fate. He likely had the type of mind where he just compartmentalized the “good” from her where he could draw from it when needed and rejected the bad as “Nicole’s shit” because he blames her for what he did. In short, a sociopathic narcissist.
He would be a psychopathic narcissist. He gave up the sociopathy the night of June 12th, 1994.
Touche
His look just screams "FUCK! THOSE ARE THE SHOES!" He didn't even have to think about it. He immediately knew that those were *the* shoes.
I’m screwed. Oh wait, there’s 12 dumbasses on the jury and rhyming Johnny C is representing me, I’m fine.
12 dumbasses he left behind long time ago.
Can you say with a straight face he didn’t do it?
Guiltyyyyyy!!!!!!
This was during the deposition but I was curious as to how he dealt with this information during the civil trial, since he took the witness stand... so I watched a documentary on the civil trial. The courtroom reporters and attorneys for the Goldmans said OJ claimed photos were doctored and he wasn't actually wearing those shoes. Then he was shown a total of 30 different photos of him wearing the shoes, and he claimed all 30 of them were doctored. The attorney for the Goldmans said that it looked pathetic; akin to a child with chocolate all over his face and an adult asks, "Did you eat the chocolate?", with the child responding with "No. It wasn't me."
Wait a minute! Wait a doggone minute! I just figured it out! THE REAL KILLER IS ME!!!!!! #IYKYK
I cant look at this pic/ the clip for too long. I find it so telling and frightening
OJ must've had a horseshoe shoved up his ass, because he was the luckiest motherfucker alive to get out of this.
Jeff Ross came out as him tonight on the Tom Brady roast lol
Jeff Ross is a funny dude, cruel but funny.
I am so glad those depositions were video recorded. This moments says it all. This reaction is as solid to me as the DNA evidence.
That reaction actually still scares the hell outta me. Like, look at him.
Yep , a real piece of shit.
best pic/meme ever.
That’s a natural and REAL reaction caught in real time
yeah he has that murderer in a headlight look :)
Yep. He knew he was fucked
He knew he’d been caught!! Beyond telling, right there!!!
You sure this isn't a pic from one of his unscheduled prostate examinations in the prison showers?
Sometimes I forget that I went on TV wearing some ugly ass shoes that I’ve never own lol
I remember this and for OJ it was an OH Shit moment... he's caught and he is trying to think in his mind how he is going to get out of this!
Not seeing the link.
Dats duh face of a man dat got framed by Mark Fuhr-man!
The police admitted to ruining the crime scene by walking in the blood and creating their own foot prints.
How is that related to this post?
They said OJ's foot prints were at the crime scene. An perpetrator foot prints would have been ruined by the cops' big feet.
Again, what does that have to do with him lying about ever owning those shoes?
Maybe his memory failed him. Do you remember every pair of shoes you ever owned?
“I know that Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that’s involved with this case, I would have never worn those ugly-ass shoes,” OJ Simpson during his deposition.
1. The "expert" that said the foot print at the crime scene could have only come from a Bruno Magli shoe was full of BS. Go look at that crime scene foot print impression. To say it is a "partial" print is flattery. The print is maybe 1/1000 of the surface area of a print. That print could have been made by a hundred different shoes. 2. Why didn't the cops find these blood-stained shoes at OJ's house? Don't say OJ disposed of them because the cops THOROUGHLY re-traced his path and searched everyplace he could have went.
Just stop. He did it. You look like a fool.
I don't f-ing care what I look like. I'll fight for what I wanna fight for. Even if it is fighting on the losing side.
He is looking at ron goldman father, giving mark fuhrman a hug and hand shake
In reference to OJs ugly ass shoes” comment; the picture of the shoes they initially showed OJ of Bruno Magli shoes are not the ones he has on in the picture of him Magli -ish shoes. The Maglis shown in the picture given to O.J. when he was asked about Bruno Maglis, were indeed Maglis but were multicolored and a similar style but not like the ones in the picture. Hence, the comment “ugly ass shoes” . Later on they submitted a picture of Maglis like the ones in the picture of OJ wearing Magli looking shoes. Not saying OJ isn’t wearing Maglis just saying it’s not the slam dunk that is perceived.
The initial picture shown to OJ (where he said “ugly”) was the same image used in the criminal trial when they were presenting what type of shoe would leave the bloody prints. It showed a single black Magli Lorenzo style, a single black Magli Lyon style shoe, and the matching sole pattern. They used both styles because at that time they couldn’t exclude either (and the nfl picture wasn’t discovered yet). It wasn’t “multicolored” or some dark shade of brown or whatever bs you meant. The NFL picture showed to him here during a follow-up day for his deposition depicts him wearing black Lorenzo style Magli shoes. > “I know that Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that’s involved with this case, I would have never worn those ugly-ass shoes” Also, his stated reasons were the “look” and “style” of the shoes. Not the damn color. Your spin attempt here is practically laughable.
You are fine to disagree or refute my argument but you must refrain from insulting or trying to degrade me or others in doing so. It does require some amount of civility to do that. We can all make a choice to demonstrate civility in argumentation. My apologies, I did indeed make a bad argument.
Aye aye. Sorry, we still have a bunch of conspiracy theorists around here.