Talk:Murder trial of O. J. Simpson/Archive 1

Word wrap

Can someone help out and fix the word wrapping on this page? I don't know how to because i am stupid 69.138.194.105 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

The majority of this article seems to written from the POV that Simpson was guilty. Most egressious is the lengthy citation-free section called "Evidence," which is a misnomer in that it is highly selective, neglecting to mention a single piece of exculpatory evidence that came out in the trial. That section is over the top POV and uncited as well. 63.166.224.67 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to slap a POV tag on this section until it's fixed.-PassionoftheDamon 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And I second. I've never heard, "Police discovered that the dome light in the Bronco had been removed...Police on stakeouts routinely remove the dome lights from their vehicles to avoid detection when the car doors are opened," even in the media. Furthermore I doubt that police do this as (american) automobiles allow one to completeley turn off the dome light, even if the door is open. 24.93.170.190 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the evidence section of this article is copied from the website http://www.altereddimensions.net/crime/OJSimpsonMurders.htm, which argues strenuously in favor of O.J. Simpson's guilt. --Sheaingram 07:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that this article is neutral enough. Regardless of people's emotions about the case, the man was tried in a court of law and aquitted. There is a substantive, historical way of looking at this and I don't believe that this article fits that description. For example, the paragraph in "Alternative Murder Theories" that attacks the theorems stated there is misplaced and should be moved or deleted (since it just restates what the prosecutors alleged anyways).

I see problems leaning the other way - what does this -

7. LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter also could not give a reasonable explanation why after taking Simpsons blood, and before recording the mountain of evidence why he walked around for hours with OJ Simpsons' blood on his person. Every police department in the civilized world requires that evidence custody logs be kept and that no one officer and detective hold evidence of this type on their person for any extended period of time.

- have to do with the criminal trial evidence? The evidence is what was presented - not someone's theories about why what was presented may or may not be suspect. LAEsquire 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)LAEsquire

The section on "Reaction to the verdict" is unsubstantiated in critical areas. For instance: (1)"Some social commentators have stated that the celebration in the black community over the Simpson verdict was a "social payback" for the acquital of the white police officers involved in the Rodney King beating trial..." (2)" It has been suggested that the O.J. Simpson trial ended a 25-year pandering/political correctness to African Americans by white society, ending the "guilt reaction" begun after the Civil Rights Movement and associated white-on-black violence of the 1960's." In the absence of citations identifying the authors of these statements or the basis for the presumed consensus (e.g. a poll) they must be considered solely the point of view of the author, and not a faithful, third-person recording of public reaction.Michigan22 05:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Media Reaction

I reverted the entire section "Public reaction to the Verdict" because it violaterd WP:OR. What didn't violate WP:OR was redundant to the opening paragraphs of Media Reaction to the Verdice, so I incorporated the sections into each other and formed just one section "Reaction to the Verdict." Ramsquire 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased text

Quote: Most white Americans, in the same polls, recognized that the case against Simpson was solid. Racial tensions grew through the trial and officials feared a repeat of the 1992 civil unrest in Los Angeles if Simpson received a guilty verdict. (Emphasis mine) Excuse me? That makes it sound like the blacks were all fooled and that only the whites saw "the truth"... I'm changing it to "felt that". Wikipedia is not the place to pass judgment.65.94.229.25 18:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow that made its way back into the article. Removing it again. 66.116.19.7 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, though, he was guilty. So. All right, edit it again, I guess :confused: Also OJ has a castle on the moon!

Whether you think he was guilty or not is not the point of this article. It is there to explain the facts from a neutral standpoint and that is all.

But... it is a fact that he was guilty. It belongs in the article. Xizer 05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong answer. He was found not guilty. If I see that text appear, then I will take it back out, too. It is not an unbiased statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.167.212 (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He WAS guilty. The fact that the jury in this case only deliberated for 3 hours, and then found him not guilty, has no bearing on whether or not he was actually guilty. There was no dispositive evidence in this case. He was found responsible by a civil jury, and during that civil trial, additional evidence was uncovered, including the fact that he had worn those same "ugly" Bruno Malgi (sp?) shoes months before the killings. This article should approach this issue from the factual point of view that he was guilty. Certainly this article should include that he was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that does not change his guilt! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.135 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

>>>He was guilty. The verdict was 'payback' (from African American jurors) for perceived racism in America. ARE YOU CRAZY THERE IS RACISM IN AMERICA WHATS AMAZING BY THIS STATEMENT IS THAT THEIR DECISION TO FIND REASONABLE DOUBT IS SEEN AS RACIST WHEN THE TRUTH IS THE PERSECUTION DROPPED THE BALL BY ALLOWING THE CREDIBILITY OF ITS WITNESSES TO BE UNDERMINED BY THERI PROVEN RACISM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't know if he was guilty or not. Either you provide enough evidence (which the prosecutors failed to do), or don't pretend that you know everything about this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.246.110 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Itobo (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia entries cannot be held to the same standard of evidence as a criminal trial, where the freedom of an individual is at stake. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" works as a standard in such instances, but "preponderance of evidence" is a sufficient standard for assessing this individual's guilt or innocence in an encyclopedic entry about him. We should be able to declare that he was found not guilty from the criminal courts perspective, but he was equally found guilty in the civil process. There was evidently enough evidence for that finding, which is a legal finding of fact. His not guilty verdict was not. The difference between the two is important. A not guilty verdict is a legal finding that the prosecutor has not met its burden of proof, whereas a civil court judgment is a legal finding of fact.

Although the lede includes reference to the guilty verdict and finding of fact in the civil trial,the trial itself isn't covered in the article. It shouldn't be in the lede if the article is not goign to cover it. Given what happened at the second trial and since, with Simpson's quasi confessions, there is a place for coverage of the civil trial. --Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to the media

Highly biased - written to only highlight the black reaction as if the white reaction was neutral/normal. Also written with the assumption that the verdict was incorrect and the white reaction was correct and justified. I balanced it out.

I noticed a similar bias issue on the world-is-round page.

Pled the Fifth

In the middle of the "Criminal Trial" section there is a red link to "pled the fifth". I'm not American, but I'm guessing this means that one pleads the Fifth Amendment, more specifically this part. Is this correct? If so, would it be appropriate to change the sentence to the following?

"Fuhrman was recalled to the stand in September, but pled the Fifth." Amelia Pound 14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Trial

I would think that there should be some more information about the pre-trial of this case. There had been a new law passed in California that had something to do with the need of Grand Jury. But most important if Judge Ito had ruled that the where exigent circumstances for the police to enter Mr. Simpson's home. Then Mark Fehrman would not not have testified and there would have not been a bloody glove or the statement "If it does not fit -- you must aquite". Gam3

englich is herd 2 rite

==removing spam paragraph==

The same paragraph content appeared in the Time Magazine and photo manipulation articles. It seems to promote Matt Mahurin's photo manipulation skills. The article photo manipulation is being reviewed for copyright infringement.

After Simpson was arrested, multiple publications carried his image. Notably, TIME magazine published an edition featuring an altered mugshot, darkening the image and reducing the size of the prisoner ID number. This appeared on newsstands right next to an unaltered picture by Newsweek. Outcry from minority rights groups followed. The image was altered by TIME illustrator Matt Mahurin, who later stated that the darkening of Simpson's skin was to "make it more artful, more compelling."

Magazine staff edits photograph, news at 11.

When the book comes out

When the book comes out, should we add how the murder was committed to this article? Or should we consider it in the hypothetical?StayinAnon 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Put it in the Alternative murder theories article. 4:16pm 26 November 2007. By MCR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.188.80 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Appeal

Was the judgement ever appealed? If not, was there a reason it wasn't appealed? I'd like to know more about that. I would think that the appeals process is the natural recourse when there is a (perceived) miscarriage of justice. Shameer 06:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the answer here: http://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/criminal_cases_appeal.htm Shameer 06:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes handy thing that Bill of Rights ;-) Daniel Freeman 13:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Two cases, two trials

The two cases make this article hard. He was found not guilty(by reasonable doubt) through a criminal case but the opposite in a civil case. The makeup of this article should reflect both sides, not offering favoritism of one or the other.

Yes, it would be useful if there were more thorough coverage of the civil court trial.--Parkwells (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Key figures

How is Geraldo Rivera key if he isn't mentioned in this article and his own (extensive) article doesn't even mention the OJ trial? The same can be said of Dunne, van Susteren and Toobin. They aren't key by any stretch of the imagination. How about a "Media" heading? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.125.35.54 (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Evidence

The evidence listed in the article is incorrect, there was no DNA evidence found on the vehicles -- the blood discovered in the vehicles was AB type which OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson shared. There was evidence not included in the article -- defensive wounds on Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, B type blood found at the murder scene, OJ Simpson's full body pictures which show that he had no injuries from a struggle, Ron Goldman's Martial Arts records, number of entry wounds from the knife, splash patterns which show the walkway saturated with blood, how the police used a blanket from inside the house to cover the bodies, how the coroner adjusted teh estimated time of death to fit the OJ theory, how the police left the murder scene unattended for hours while going to investigate OJ Simpson, lots of biased speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paime77 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. Furthermore, the "Criminal Trial Evidence" section lists only evidence for the prosecution. It lists nothing for the defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.167.212 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, line 19 from the "Evidence" section is not evidence: "Following his testimony, Fung was greeted with handshakes and hugs from the defense table where he was viewed as a hero" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.218.38 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be a sign of thoroughness to see some reference to the housekeeper who disappeared within a week after the defense told the LAPD they were going to call her as a witness. It would be a sign of acknowledgement of media bias to reference the hundreds of editorial cartoons that used a variant of the "does I gets to keep de watermelon" joke after OJ was found innocent.4.246.0.187 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jason Simpson

Does anyone have a citation for the report that Jason Simpson was murdered on December 28, 2006 in Malibu, CAff

Arshadm 06:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is impossible as he is currently playing for the Arkansas Twisters in the AF2. This is a televised & publically viewed sport, making any information of his death non plausible.

That is a different Jason Simpson. The one we are referring to was born in 1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.36.195 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

He's not listed in the Social Security Death Index. Intelius connects a 37-year-old "Jason L. Simpson" to Brentwood, Clovis, and Los Angeles, California (that doesn't indicate a death or anything though).--Tim Thomason 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

References

I realise there are some books referenced, but there is very little/no in-text referencing, so it impossible to know what parts of the article are actually "true" or not. Citations would be fantastic if anyone ever gets bored. I wouldn't know where to start. Cheers, Rothery 02:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. See Virginia Tech massacre for the types of sources this should have. From what little I remember, there was MUCH more coverage of the OJ simpson trial than VT (consider VT only happened a few months ago, and it's already left the public's interest), I wouldn't mind digging through some old newspapers at the local library if I can find some on microfilm or something, but I'd need a laptop to take notes, and I've been short on cash lately... this should be easily to find sources for, though --Lucid 14:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Starting a new section, past discussion is dated. Parts come off like a storybook, with subjective remarks of people's thoughts etc. Needs footnotes of sources where that information is coming from. NPOV can be achieved by conforming to content in good sources.Sciallo 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is hopelessly biased. "Only two jurors had a college education" !!!! What elitist claptrap. Who wrote that drivel? 90.11.230.159 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's actually true. When the prosecution showed DNA evidence, the jury was talking about how some people have the same blood type. They clearly didn't understand the difference between blood type and DNA. After I studied the OJ case in school, I was actually pleasantly surprised at the neutrality of the article. I was expecting lots of bias, but it is quite neutral. There's probably lots that we don't know about the case, but there's one point that I didn't see there: Not to be subjective, but if the defense's case is true, then the whole of LAPD must have conspired against OJ. It's unlikely that everyone on the force was that passionate about football. I'm just saying... ForestAngel 22:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's surprisingly NPOV. What parts are in need of a rewrite, in your opinion? —AldeBaer 14:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... in my opinion? I think that what I just said should be added. I saw it in a documentary about it once in law class. I think it was done by either A&E or History Channel, so that would be the source. Where I would FIND that source is a whole other story. ForestAngel 08:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many sources (not yet included, but a Google search brings up several usable items) where the conspiracy allegations are thoroughly ridiculed and officials are quoted with statements to that effect. —AldeBaer 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the over all tone of this article is that OJ got away with A double murder. For one thing the list of evidence given is incomplete. Also the reference to the jury"s lack of education may be true, but that is not all that unusual There is no education requirement for jury duty. I watched that trial on a daily basis but my own opinion(s) would violate the wiki no original research rule so what I am going to do is go to the library and dig up some material you might find quite interesting. Our city workers are on strike right now and I am fairly busy but little by little I will provide you with documentable and reliable sources that should serve to make you even more neutral than you already are. This is my first visit to this article and I think it does a pretty good job regurgitating the crap that the media tried to stuff down the general publics throat. I think OJ may well be guilty but I know for a fact that the prosecution failed to prove its case and proceeded to place the blame for its loss on the jury and the defense attorneys. The so called mountain of evidence had been tainted so badly that only an all white jury would have been able to convict him. I did not place the pov tag on this article and I don't care if it stays or goes. I am however looking forward to having an on going discussion about these matters. I think it could prove to be a lot of fun. Albion moonlight 11:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, how does something become MORE neutral? If you're so dead-set to provide evidence to prove OJ's case, then wouldn't that be making it biased?

Evidence-wise, the judgment was fair. But truth-wise, it wasn't. The problem was with the prosecution's case. They organized the evidence badly, showed their cards early, and left out crucial information with which could have gotten OJ a guilty verdict. If DNA is tainted like the defense claimed, then the DNA would be impossible to read.

I've heard some people say that OJ did it with an accomplice. Again, I really don't think race had anything to do with the prosecution. If it did, then LAPD would have had to have an agenda to go to every single black football player's house in the area and frame them for murder. I think the crucial turning point was when they switched where they were holding the case. Stupid, stupid, stupid. ForestAngel 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think people are necessarily suggesting the LAPD in general or even the people involved wanted to frame every single black football player. Rather I think the suggestion is, accurate or not, that some of the people (or at least one of the people) involved planted evidence to frame Simpson who they may very well have believed was guilty of the murder especially perhaps since he was black and she was white. Note that the defense could have and I'm sure did present multiple theories about who could have done what. This doesn't mean they are claiming everyone did everything. The defense doesn't have to present a consistent story of what happened. All they have to do is to provide resonable doubt to the jury which I think is often best done by poking multiple holes in the story and suggesting multiple people could have done things such as planted evidence which will provide resonable doubt. The jury doesn't have to decide what actually happened. All they have to do is to decide whether the prosecution case is proven beyond resonable doubt and if one of the possibilities presented by the defense is credible enough to provide resonable doubt then they must acquit (as Chrocaine I believe liked to say) Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes . The term more neutral is misleading . I should have said closer to neutrality than it already is. This is a pretty good article . The articles list of evidence and the article itself is missing key information that you may not even know about. Most of it will have nothing to do with race. Albion moonlight 02:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename it

It should probably be the "O. J. Simpson's murder trial," or "Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman murder case" 171.71.37.207 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be renamed.--Parkwells (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be called "OJ Simpson Trials", because there were two.--Parkwells (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some online references that could come in handy

• Carl E. Enomoto: Public sympathy for O.J. Simpson: the roles of race, age, gender, income, and education. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. January 1999.
• Scott M Dimmich "The Emotion within the Evidence: The Jury of the O.J. Simpons Trial" (PDF). (a college work, therefore not reliable, but features a load of useful references)
• CNN index of O.J. Simpson articles
• Matthew Hutson: Unnatural Selection. In: Psychology Today Magazine. Mar/Apr 2007.

—AldeBaer 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a whole section on the jury is warranted. It is very interesting. I am not sure how we can add it and still be neutral but there probably is a way. The balance may need to come from additions to other sections. Albion moonlight 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I too was surprised how many sources seem to specifically deal with the jury. —AldeBaer 00:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Killing Time (Donald Freed, Raymond P. Briggs,

The above mentioned book is the most unbiased account of the OJ case I have ever come across. It was wriiten in 1996. It examines all the evidence and draws no conclusion as to OJ's guilt or innocence. And it does not make the subjective and spurious conclusion that the whole LAPD police force would have had to been involved in order for the defenses version to be true. Marsha Clark was perhaps the first to make of making that claim to the media but the defense quickly pointed out that that just simply isn't so. Albion moonlight 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jail Time

It really needs to be included in the article that he was jailed between June 1994 and the day of the verdict ==John celona 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Detective Philip L. Vannatter

The defense attorneys impeached Vannatter effectively. Maybe Vannatter's impeachment should be included in the section after Mark Fuhrman's. Having discredited two key state witnesses was important, IMHO. AaronCBurke 21:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

This article is full of weasel words. For example:

• "Some who opposed the verdict blamed the jurors..."
• "Those that did mention the DNA evidence showed what critics purport to be a lack of understanding of it."

It lends an impression that the person who wrote those sections is biased in favor of the prosecution and against the defense. Such areas should be cleaned up and rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.167.212 (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious

Somebody sure loves the word 'tendentious.' This article needs a lot of work. It reads like someone's school project, not like an encyclopedia entry. I know nothing about the trial, so I will try to contribute by fixing up grammar and styleDiggyG 00:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the Pop Culture section to this talk page. It isn't encyclopedic material, but maybe someone disagrees, so I will leave it here:DiggyG 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture

As an extremely controversial case, the O.J. Simpson murder trial, and its after-effects have been lampooned in American culture.

• As a cutaway gag from Family Guy, Brian expresses shock and anger over the verdict of Simpson's case, while his roommate, a black man, expresses joy. After a standoff, Brian suggests they find different roommates.

• In an episode of The Simpsons, Bart and Milhouse are watching an episode of South Park, where Simpson kills an auditorium full of people before declaring that he's going to find the real killer.

• An episode of Seinfeld parodied the "glove-fitting" when Cosmo Kramer brought a case against a woman for wearing a bra as a top, leading to his distraction and, as a result, a car accident. During the trial, Kramer demanded the woman try on the bra over a leotard, but when it doesn't fit, she is acquitted. Kramer's lawyer responds to this by saying, "She's trying it on over a leotard.. of course a bra's not gonna fit on over a leotard. A bra's gotta fit right up against a person's skin...like a glove!"

• In an episode of South Park Butters mother (Mrs. Stotch) goes insane and in an attempt to kill Butters, which she believes to be successful, blames 'Some Puerto Rican Guy'. A club whose loved ones also are murdered by 'Some Puerto Rican Guy' contacts the Stotch's and one of the members are O.J Simpson. At the end of the episode Butters finds his parents, and when they tell everyone in town about what's happened they show Simpson every time Mr.Stotch say 'murderer' or 'got away with MURDER'.

• The last verse of the song "Stronger" by Kanye West contains the lyrics, "like O.J. had Isotoners," referring to the Aris Isotoner gloves that O.J. denied owning but was seen in various photos wearing them.

No ending to the chase

Is there any reason why the article doesn't describe how the slow-speed chase ended? AceHarding 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

About the Legitimacy

Yeah I am currently a senior in High School and I don't think that articles like this be taken down...I'm in a Forensics class and I am using this case for a report and for that matter why take it down? Honestly, if you can't handle not being politically correct that is your problem not mine. Besides, this being up here isn't hurting anyone. It's very educational too, because before reading this I had no idea what happened in the case I just assumed him guilty without knowing the facts (I still think he was guilty but I do agree with the jury because there was not enough evidence in the first place and most of the evidence was tampered with). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.30.222 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of improvement

Unfortunately this article is missing a lot of information and is a bit of a disappointment. The trial lasted for nine months and all the article has to show for it is a few pages. There is no information for example on what the prosection said was the motive. There is no information on what transpired in the civil trial. Because of the recent media hype, people are trying to brush up on the nitty gritty of the case, one would expect wikipedia to be a good source. Muntuwandi 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Racial Bias in the Article

There is the following line:

"Another reason seems to stem from the fact that the jury included mostly African-Americans, suggesting that race also played a part in the decision."

I suspect that a white person wrote at least this section. The reason is that, while there is discussion of criticism of "mostly African-Americans" on the jury, the article does not point out the fact that there was virtually no criticism of "mostly women" on that same jury. That needs to be pointed out in the article, as it is still to this day bandied about the idea that "the black jury let him walk." Just yesterday I had this conversation with someone (a white woman), and she commented on "the black jury." I mentioned to her, "what about the ten women on that same jury?" She answered, "so what, they're still black." It didn't seem to matter at all to her that there were ten women, only that there were "mostly blacks." This was back in 1995, and still is today in 2007, quite common, especially among white women. That point should be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.167.212 (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a secondary source that talks about the impact that the female jurors had, then by all means include it (personally, I doubt there are many good sources for that one because neither the crime nor the theories of the case dealt much with gender). As far as the racial stuff, there's tons of sources on it, which is why this article focuses on it. 70.21.103.75 (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently saw a documentary (The Final Report - O.J. Simpson Trial) which mentions the gender issue of the jury. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion

THere is a NPOV tag on the article, however there is no section discussing where the article violateds NPOV. Please have the discussion here. If there is no issue of NPOV, then the tag needs to be removed. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will remove it and see what happens. The article is far from being either accurate or neutral but as far as I can tell the only way to fix that is add to it and or edit it. I do not see a dispute in progress. : Albion moonlight 09:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the controversy of this case, I think this article is pretty close to being neutral. The only thing that's missing is a section listing out the defense's evidence. 70.21.103.75 (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

DNA test

Does anyone know if Jason Simpson's DNA was tested against the alleged murder's DNA? It seems to me to be textbook forensic science that it would have been Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What to do with a vandal?

The user 204.102.1.223 added, "This trial is full of s***!", to the criminal trial evidence. I deleted it and just thought it should be dealt with, I ain't an admin or anything. Sutjo-18005 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You did exactly the right thing, thanks. Any user can make edits and undo acts of vandalsim, remember the mantra at Wikipedia is "Be Bold." Admins can step in and handle more peskier vandals and place blocks on them. Jacksinterweb (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Devon Abbott?

>"Devon Abbott lawyers convinced the Los Angeles Police Department to allow Simpson to turn himself in"

What is Devon Abbott? I don't see any search engine results for it, and it looks like the kind of thing that someone who wanted to stick his own name in the article would add; but it's been there for a long time, so it makes me wonder why noone would have reverted it. TheHYPO (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in lead

I would like to quote the following from the last paragraph of the introduction:

"Leading forensic specialists such as Marie McCaig of West Union, NY have recently found strong evidence that could possibly put the former running back in jail. "When you take into the account the blood stained boots and socks, its an easy assumption to make that he killed her." McCaig just recently learned about the murder on an episode of Nancy Grace and has no formal education in the forensics department, but her voice continues to be heard."

Specifically, I would like to point out "Leading forensic specialists such as Marie McCaig", and "McCaig just recently learned about the murder on an episode of Nancy Grace and has no formal education in the forensics department". This sounds like a contradiction, as a person is not usually considered a forensic specialist unless that person has received a formal education on the subject. I would be bold, and remove the contradiction, but I don't know whether McCaig is a leading forensic specialist or not. Could someone please find out, and remove the contradiction as a result. Thank you in advance. 217.43.162.188 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire paragraph has been removed by another user. As a result, I am statisfied that the contradiction has been resolved. Thank you. 217.43.81.203 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

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

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

Old Tags on this page

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

sentencing

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

Two cases, two trials

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

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

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

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

Missing section on what happened the night of the murders

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

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

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

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

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

Year of the Murder Not in the Lead

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

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

Quasi-confessions

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

Ross cutlery knife point deleted.

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

Wrong dates

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

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

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

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

source please?

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

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

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

Bloody???

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

Alternate murder theories

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

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

Video

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

Mark Fuhrman timeline

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

No evidence to following statement

Racial tensions grew through the trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dates on Jennifer Peace's involvement

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

Evidence not used

Should the following be added to the evidence not used?

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

Exiting Bronco

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

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

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

References

"OMIG" material in "Alternate Murder Theory" section

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

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

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

A case is not the same as a trial

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

Chewbacca Defense

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

The Glove

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

Red Herring

no mention at all of the Red Herring method used in his defense and race as an issue. thats no complete article. Our own article Chewbacca_defense mentions this.[1][2][3][4] and in particular [5] and [6][7] (not RS, but theyreleads). These are good: [8]*[9]***(Lihaas (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)).

Length of trial

Why did the trial take over 10 months?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

L.A.P.D.

One aspect of the trial that seems to be missing is the determination of the wide-spread abuse of authority by the L.A.P.D. at the time of the trial. This certainly had a disproportionate effect on the black community and specifically on the jurors' willingness to trust the police, their testimony, their actions, and the evidence they claim to have found. I believe there were significant federal interventions a few years after O.J.'s trial into the L.A.P.D. management structure (if memory serves me). Another issue is the reliability of shoe-print evidence. NSF recently issued a study which said that virtually none of the forensic methods, except for DNA, have ever been scientifically validated. Without a disciplined crime lab, DNA evidence is useless. With a well run lab, DNA evidence is priceless. Here we seem to have had a severely compromised lab. Also, Furhman's activities were central to much of the trial; what should we make of the fact that he committed felony perjury about a fact that I speculate the defense team had solid knowledge of? (and so was likely well known behavior by him.) A single case of bad judgment, or a continuation of a pattern of deceit?173.189.74.11 (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

O. J. or O.J.?

With the space or without? There are both in this article. We should decide on one or the other for consistency. Inglok (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

citation link does not contain information it is cited for.

The number 4 link titled "Confusion for Simpson Kids 'far from over'" does not contain the information it is cited for under the civil case section. No mention of "Baker [making] a mistake that allowed Petrocelli to introduce evidence regarding Simpson's failure of a lie detector test about the murders" is mentioned in the article that is cited. This should be marked either as "Citation Needed" or replaced with a reliable source. I'm still confused on how to make comments on editing (such as "cite needed") so if anyone could comment on how to do that as well, I'd appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylescoen12 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting issues

Hello, In the section on the Bronco chase there are some strange characters showing up with the footnote superscripts. It's beyond me how to fix them. Marklemagne (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Title

The title is strange. OJ Simpson was not murdered. He was on trial for murder. Wikipedia articles tend to follow the format of using the victim's names. So shouldn't it be "Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman murder trial"? Or even the longer formal title?--Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Image

An image is needed. Ideally, three images. One of Simpson during the trial. Two of the victims and captions explaining who they are. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence

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

I find it interesting that no mention of the fact it was stated that EDTA, a blood preservative use in the vials used to collect samples from O.J. was found in the samples supposedly taken from Nicole but not on those from the socks or back gate:

"EDTA, a blood preservative, was identified on stains prepared from the K67 and K68 blood samples from Nicole Simpson and Orenthal J. Simpson, respectively. No EDTA was identified in the blood stains removed from the Q204 swabbing of the rear gate at the crime scene and from the Q205/6 sock. Traces of EDTA were detected on the stained and unstained cutting from the victim's dress."--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. I believe this serves purpose in case of protection request. George Ho (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

O. J. Simpson murder case → People v. Simpson – Or People v. O. J. Simpson? Someone moved the article to "People of State of California v. Orenthal James Simpsons" without consensus, and almost no one noticed. Fortunately, I was able to re-rename the article. Should it stay this way or go for the typical court case name per MOS:LEGAL? George Ho (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Before you moved it back, the article was moved by Harizotoh9 in September 2014. I told Harizotoh9 later that month the following: "And, Harizotoh9, for two days now, I've been meaning to talk with you about your moving the O. J. Simpson murder case article to People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson and the O. J. Simpson robbery case article to State of Nevada v. Orenthal James Simpson, et al.. I think that the WP:Common name policy comes into play here, and that the former titles are best for our readers. Look at 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and Trial of Conrad Murray for examples. So I'll start WP:Requested move discussions for those articles soon, if they are not moved back to their former titles before that point." Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Most searches will be Conducted using the more common name, which is O.J. Simpson murder case. We use the most common search titles as article names for a reason. It makes them more recognizable and easier to find. JOJ ^Hutton 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per above as well as COMMONNAME. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose OJ has been involved in a number of criminal court cases, and was jailed for armed robbery. The proposed title shows nothing indicating which court case it is about. Further, many people are named "Simpson" who have been involved in court cases. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reasons already pointed out by Flyer22, Jojhutton and Davey2010 Alza08 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, it is not the common name. Spumuq (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

SNL Confession?

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

The "confession" was a punch line in a skit where Tim Meadows played O.J. as a football game announcer. While using a Telestrator, he drew lines on a picture of a formation and by the time he had finished drawing on it, it looked like he had written "I did it" on the screen. It was a really clever joke. __209.179.5.204 (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

About that Time Cover

I remember when the Time magazine scandal broke, especially when Mark Shields ranted about it on that old CNN show he co-anchored. The interesting thing about that controversy was that it revealed the hypocrisy of the people who attacked Time. For some reason it never occurred to them that by condemning Time for darkening the cover, they were implicitly saying they themselves were racists. Om other words you believe the very thing you are condemning.

One should also remember that magazine publishers, having to compete with hundreds of other magazines on the news stands, try to do things to appeal to casual passers-by, and do things to make the covers stand out. This is a very common thing, from moving Jodie Foster's belly button three inches on a cover of Rolling Stone, to putting Oprah Winfrey's head on Ann Margret's body for a cover of TV Guide. Time magazine had no ethical reason to apologize - they should have instead pointed out the hypocrisy of their critics. __209.179.5.204 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

DNA Evidence Probability

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

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

How can a number be assigned to the following:

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

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

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

See [[10]]

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

I agree that the odds presented in the trial were asinine. One in 9.7 billion?! How in the name of sanity do you have odds greater then the number of people (7.125 billion as of 2013) who were even alive on the freaking planet? The one in 21 billion was even more idiotic. Where were those numbers coming from?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The odds are determined by the number of variables and their possible combinations; they have nothing to do with how many people are currently alive or whether people (1) knew the victim, (2) threatened to murder one of the victims, (3), (4), etc. For example, let's say that human DNA was very basic and only had 4 variables, each of which could be 'on' or 'off'. The odds would then be 8 to 1 of any particular person matching the blood sample. Obviously DNA is far more complicated than that and as a result the odds are much, much higher. Certain types of twins have identical DNA and it is also possible for two unrelated people to have the same DNA. It's just EXTREMELY unlikely. The odds can also be affected by the condition of the sample. To use our 4 variable DNA example again, if the sample was damaged such that it wasn't possible to determine the state of one of the variables, then the odds would shrink to 4 to 1 that any particular person matched the sample. So ... when they throw out odds of 170 million to 1, or 21 billion to 1, or whatever, it is based on how many variables there are in the DNA sample. Does that make sense? FillsHerTease (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Trimming of alternative theories

Citing WP:UNDUE I've removed a lot of the speculative and alternative theories of the case. In a big case like this, it's not surprizing that people would come in and either make up stories or try to come up with outlandish theories. Wikipedia does not have to report on any of them.

Also, the article is pretty big as it is, and it should just focus on the most important information, not these speculative theories that seem to have little basis in evidence. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Eliminating alternative theories in a case where the a jury decided the prosecution's theory did not pass "reasonable doubt" seems on its face unreasonable.

The theory promoted by private investigator William Dear in his book "OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It"

a) presents hard evidence Simpson's eldest son Jason's alibi was falsified b) presents his son's detailed very troubled, very violent past, including being charged with assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) later pleaded down; a reported attempt to strangle one girlfriend, and another where he butchered a different girlfriend's hair with a knife; multiple suicide attempts, two involving sharp objects; disturbing quotes from a recovered diary ("This for me is the year of the knife" and many more); evidence of cocaine and alcohol abuse coupled with medication used both to control epilepsy and "rage" disorders; a report that Jason had admitted to an ER nurse that he had stopped taking his medication and was going to "rage", just a few months before the murders; c) fits all relevant physical evidence, including DNA and clothing evidence found at the scene d) comments from Simpson's friend, Ron Shipp (also seen on a BBC special where he is interviewed) where Nicole is quoted as being unsure whether or not Simpson or Jason is "stalking" her

And a good deal more, including vetting of the information by forensic and law enforcement experts.

51:27 stalking book cite author cite

Bronco60 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)bronco60

References

Lacks some detail on reaction to verdict

Nearly every source, admittedly offhandedly, has used "OJ Simpson" juror as equivalent to "stupid." Satires perhaps, but still persistent.

While most blacks believed he was innocent at the time of the verdicts, I somewhat doubt that they share that opinion today, though I haven't run across any statistics. Just too much information has surfaced about OJ in different places, mostly bad. And there's been lots of publicity about DNA, which was not well understood at the time. Student7 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And apparently that remains true today, since just recently the FBI was forced to admit that its DNA type matching method for mixed (multiple person) samples could be off by as much as 8 orders of magnitude.

Similar criticisms about the probity of the DNA evidence presented at the trial include unscientific methodologies used to establish so-called "match" probabilities, and gross contamination at the scene. Later years have revealed that such problems are endemic to the field of forensic science, including notably extreme instances of the above (and many more) problems at the FBI crime laboratories.

Bronco60 (talk)bronco60 —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Nicole and Goldman's relationship

The article called Ron Goldman Nicole's friend. What is the actual nature of their relationship? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Most published sources I have seen clearly suggest they were simply fairly close friends. Nicole was known to let Goldman drive her Ferrari from time to time, a possible source of mild jealousy for Simpson. They also discussed, along with Faye Resnick, the possibility of opening a restaurant together. There seems to be some reason to think the three were casual (in Resnick's case more than casual) cocaine use.

````bronco60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronco60 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

After reading the whole article, I think that it could improve in two aspects: 1) what was Simpson's financial situation before and after the trials, and especially after the civil trial; the text seems to imply that he went bankrupt, is that correct? 2) There could be more information regarding the legal status of his children with Nicole: as he was acquitted of the murder crimes, did he receive the custody of the children? If not, who became responsible for them, and was he allowed to see them on a regular basis? Thanks, —capmo (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Simpson was awarded custody of his children Justin and Sydney after a lengthy court battle:

Bronco60 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)bronco60

References

Simpson Knife Was Surrendered in Court

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

Also the knife was observed by law enforcement and defense personnel and determined to have never been used.````bronco60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronco60 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kardashians

In the aftermath section, what about the fact that this trial would eventually serve to turn the Kardashian family into celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.247.150 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Full trial videos available?

Hello everyone,

I am working on the same article in the German Wikipedia and I wanted to ask if anyone knows if the full videos of the trial can be found online?

Especially the opening statements and testimonies of Kato Kaelin and Dennis Fung would be interesting. However, as far as I know only a few testimonies (Rieders, Bodziak, Deederick etc.) are available on Youtube and they are sadly not complete.

Help is much appreciated!

Thank you. 91.3.120.102 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unclear language

What does "Although, the blood that was tested ruled out Fung within published guidelines" mean? The article overall needs to be edited for style.Wolfita (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016

Aftermath > Later "In March 2015 the LAPD announced a knife had been found at Simpson's home in 1998, when the buildings were bulldozed down. A construction worker had handed over the knife to a police officer, who waited for two decades before submitting it as evidence. Forensic tests are to be run on the knife. New Yorker reporter Jeffrey Toobin does not believe this knife is the murder weapon.[90]"

Should read March 2016 right? 68.3.242.145 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Yep. Good catch. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016

In the section "Later," right above the references at the very bottom, the year is wrong in one bullet. "In March 2015 the LAPD announced a knife had been found at Simpson's home in 1998..." - this happened last week, the year is 2016 not 2015. I believe the source is correct, but the year is not. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Already done See above request EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How to include media personnel?

Would it be worthwhile to mention the various media personalities who covered the case and then went on to bigger and better things? Jeffrey Toobin eventually parlayed his coverage of the case into a book and a TV mini-series. Roger Cossack and Greta Van Susteren on CNN covered the case and then were given their own legal affairs show. Greta has had her own show on Fox News for over a decade. Dan Abrams started as a Court TV reporter and is now a powerful media figure in New York. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Syntax problem

The following is not a complete sentence: "On the other hand, the defense's research suggested that women generally were more likely to acquit than men, that jurors did not respond well to Clark's combative style of litigation." It would make sense to say "and that jurors did not respond well to Clark's combative style of litigation," but I don't know if that's an accurate representation of the facts. Did the defense's research suggest that jurors did not respond well to Clark's combative style of litigation? If not, who reached that conclusion? Sadiemonster (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Another syntax problem

"Judge Lance Ito was also criticized for ... not doing enough to regulate the court proceedings as much as he could have". The combination "enough" with "as much as he could have" is strange English; "not regulating the court proceedings as much as he could have" or "not doing enough to regulate the court proceedings" would be fine, but both in the same sentence isn't.213.127.210.95 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"My Brother the Serial Killer"

Somebody deleted all information from the documentary "My Brother the Serial Killer" from 2012.

The deleted information can be seen here.

Why? And who did it? Will someone re-install it?

It is an increasing problem on Wikipedia that editors deletes information. Even if it is well-sourced and important. If anyone wants to remove some portion of a page, please take your time to discuss it on TalkPages beforehand, otherwise it is likely to be considered vandalism. The problem is now so widespread on Wikipedia, that even some administrators are known to abuse their privileges. In some cases it is probably done for the sake of outright suppression and manipulation, in other cases (hopefully the majority?) it is just laziness and general disrespect. So for editors reading this: Be more careful and thoughtful with your future edits and ask yourself: Who am I trying to help and what consequences will my actions have?

RhinoMind (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

To Summarise?

What does that mean – not guilty, but responsible? Is there a way to summarise it in plain words, somewhere in the lede? That's probably the only thing that makes the story stand away (the media fuss aside), so that thing ought to be mentioned… - Urals00 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ron or Ronald

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

It is also false about the accusation of him being friend: her friend and restaurant waiter, Ron Goldman - they were having an affair, so it should read, her lover on the side Ron Goldman, being a waiter is irrelevant. 70.162.75.27 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Made In America Reference

What happened to the remark made by Simpson as he was being driven away from Brentwood? The source on that was solid. Why was it removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.245.219 (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in O. J. Simpson murder case

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of O. J. Simpson murder case's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TS":

• From My Brother the Serial Killer: "O.J. Simpson film: Serial killer murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman 9". Toronto Sun. Retrieved 29 November 2012.
• From Prosecutor's fallacy: Thompson, E.L.; Shumann, E. L. (1987). "Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials: The Prosecutor's Fallacy and the Defense Attorney's Fallacy". Law and Human Behavior. 2 (3): 167. doi:10.1007/BF01044641. JSTOR 1393631.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Other theories

Last seen, the "other theories" section was deleted because "it was speculation."

Now I realize the O.J. Simpson case is controversial, and it does seem to me that there will still be other versions of events as to what happened. This article seems to be the same.

It's just this sort of treatment that only serves to feed the conspiracy theories.

I'm not defending other theories on what happened on June 12 1994. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole and Ron just like the prosecution said he did. But if we're going to have to disprove other theories it only makes sense that we should say what people like Marcia Clark have said about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.250.197 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! RhinoMind (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have just added several individuals' reaction to the theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.247.125 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The "Other Theories" section is still there, between "Aftermath" and "In Popular Culture". O Murr (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Made In America reference

The officer said that Simpson said "niggers", not "niggas". I hate the word as much as the next man but this is what Simpson clearly said. I hate the word as much as the next man but this is what he was reported as he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.104.69 (talk • contribs)

The word you removed was sourced. Reverted. Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant correcting what Simpson spoke as he was driven away from Brentwood; the subtitles clearly said "niggers", not "niggas" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.31.46 (talk • contribs)

Suggestions

I have seen that Lee Harvey Oswald has been named as John F. Kennedy's killer on Wikipedia; I suggest the same be done to O.J. Simpson and name him as the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Various programs (America Crime Story, Made In America) have resulted in the consensus that reliable sources state that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. The legal contexts of "burden of proof" and "presumption of innocence" apply to someone who is being tried for a crime. Although Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law, reliable sources firmly establish his culpability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.97.98 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCRIME (which directly addresses the OJ Simpson case). This is a sensitive legal issue.

The article on Lee Harvey Oswald states that "According to four federal government investigations and one municipal investigation" - all five of them cited - Oswald assassinated JFK. Nothing comparable exists for O J Simpson - although it may in the future. Your 'reliable sources' - which you fail to cite - appear to be nothing more than current popular opinion polls. How knowledgeable are the majority of people about the facts of this case? O Murr (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't the jurors interviews make the article?

During an interviews that came after the trial to present day at least four of the jurors admitted that they thought he was guilty but that the 'majority' of the jury let him off variously 'as revenge for Rodney King' in the case of the earliest interview immediately after the trial, and as a 'racial message' to the public according to the rest. There's numerous other damning interviews that came out over time that indicated that the jury had no interest in convicting him even though 'most' were convinced he did it (I quote most given that as yet most of the jurors haven't spoken out, or at least I've only seen four interviews where they overtly admit to corrupt intent). That's pretty much one of the most damning parts of this trial up until he wrote his confessional book, until the jurors admitted that everyone's suspicion was based solely on the evidence presented during the trial.

Either way, these interviews are HUGELY relevant to this article and an important part of the history of the case. Agendabender (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I've read your biography page, and I must say that I share your concerns about the way that Wikipedia is sometimes abused by 'editors' with agendas. However, where "The O J Simpson murder case" page is concerned I'm aware of a substantial amount of negative vandalism - that is, hostile to Simpson - but no positive vandalism - that is, partial to Simpson. My own attempts to correct a couple of incredibly inaccurate misrepresentations of fact were removed and replaced with the original fake 'edits'. This happened repeatedly. (The culprit goes by the username "Britmax".) I can direct you to these two passages now.

• Look at the description of the discovery of Simpson's white Ford Bronco 'scattered all over' with blood. In fact, there was nothing more than a single small bloodspot above the driver's exterior door-handle.

• And look at the description of limo driver Allan Park seeing "a tall black man" inside the grounds of Simpson's compound. The witness never used this phrase. In fact, he told prosecutor Marcia Clark that he wasn't sure of the person's gender - which could be a vital clue to this person's true identity, since it may not have been O J Simpson.

I reluctantly had to give up and satisfy myself by attaching two 'citation needed' tags to these lies. (Of course, no citations have been provided, because they don't exist.)

This is why I'm so concerned about your own assertions regarding the alleged true beliefs and intentions of the jury members in the criminal trial. (Have you ever wondered about the beliefs and intentions of the jury members in the civil case?) You don't provide any sources - I would like to check those for myself.

There are numerous OJS videos available on YouTube. And there's the award-winning documentary "O.J.: Made in America". The criminal trial jury members who I've seen in these all justify their Not Guilty verdict by claiming that the Prosecution failed to prove its case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

The more I learn about the facts of this tragic affair the more I am unable to disagree with them. O Murr (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Further to my above reply I've decided to quote and then dissect the two corrupt passages that I mentioned.

• BACKGROUND • MURDERS : In[sic] the back[sic] of his home, they[sic] found some[sic] blood scattered[sic] all over[sic] on[sic] a white Ford Bronco.

Apart from the reference to the white Ford Bronco, not a word of this is true. (In addition, the sentence is semi-literate.)

• The car was not found 'in' the back of O J Simpson's home but at the front, outside the Rockingham Avenue gateway.

• 'They' - meaning all four of the LAPD detectives who went to Simpson's home in the early hours of Monday morning, 13 June 1994 - did not find the car. It was found by Mark Fuhrman alone, who was around the corner of Rockingham Avenue on his own, out of view of the three other detectives, Lange, Vannatter and Phillips.

• There was no blood 'scattered all over' the white car.

• 'Some' blood was only a single tiny bloodspot, just 1/4 inch wide, too small to be analyzed.

• PROSECUTION CASE: ...Park testified that he saw "a tall black man"[sic] of Simpson's[sic] height and build[sic] enter the front door of the house...

The limo driver Allan Park did say that he saw a '6-foot...black' figure enter O J Simpson's house. (At about 10:55pm on Sunday, 12 June 1994.)

• He did not say that this person was a man. When prosecutor Marcia Clark asked him did he 'form an opinion' that the person he saw was male or female he answered "No".

• When Clark asked him specifically did the person he saw 'look like Mr Simpson' he replied that he 'couldn't tell who it was'.

• He never referred to the person's 'build', only to the person's weight - which he gave as 200 pounds.

• Sources: External link • "Famous American Trials: The O. J. Simpson Trial" • Criminal Trial Excerpts: Mark Fuhrman - Allan Park

The people responsible for posting such lies are more than vandals or trolls. They are Disinformationists. They set out deliberately not to misinform but to disinform - to publish things which they know are not only not true but are the exact opposite of the truth. Fortunately, they are not very intelligent and they are easily found out.

O Murr (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

"My own attempts to correct a couple of incredibly inaccurate misrepresentations of fact were removed and replaced with the original false 'edits'. This happened repeatedly. (The culprit goes by the username 'Britmax'.) I can direct you to these two passages now".

By all means do, so we know what we are talking about. Britmax (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's already been done - and in great detail. See above. O Murr (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember now. Please refer to this diff as my reason, explained in an Edit summary, has not changed. Britmax (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't want this unpleasantness to continue, so this will be my last word to you. Check the sources I've given above and then give your own. Quote from the witness testimony. However, I doubt that you have any sense of honesty or decency. But I can assure you of this. The two passages you've vandalized will not be allowed to remain in a corrupt state forever. O Murr (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Alleged confession

As seen here and here, there is an IP framing an alleged confession as a true confession from Simpson, and withholding a counterargument. I reverted the IP, but as seen in the second link, the IP reverted. If the IP does not justify this change here on the talk page, I will be taking this matter to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Taken to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Alleged murder confession at O. J. Simpson murder case article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again. IP, stop doing this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And adding Fred Goldman's views to the "Reaction from individuals involved" section is fine, but TMZ often is not considered a WP:Reliable source. So find a different source for that bit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)