Talk:Murder trial of O. J. Simpson/Archive 3

Separate article for the reaction to the verdict section
Im drafting a separate article for the Reaction to the verdict section of this article since Flyer22 Frozen believes my addition make this article too long. Feel free to chime in and add/critique whatever you like to the article.Samsongebre (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally think that such an article is completely unnecessary. I mean, despite what has been stated to you above, you don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not for covering every little detail of a case or any topic. And if you do understand that, you simply don't care. NEDOCHAN even asked you on your talk page to not focus on adding more to the article, but you came back months later and did that anyway. I understand that you are enthusiastic about this topic and (in the context of contributing) only use Wikipedia to edit about it, but, again, Wikipedia has protocols that we follow. I think that, in the long run, it will be best if any spin-off articles you create are whittled down and merged. Keeping one of them might be okay, but I doubt that more than one will be needed. Until then, though, not further bloating this already overly long article is a start. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevant AfD
Editors of this page may be interested in this AfD, which proposes merging any usable portions of the biography of Paula Barbieri into this article. --JBL (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to current Brown-Simpson Marriage, Abuse section
User-duck, NEDOCHAN, Flyer22 Frozen, Sundayclose - I'm proposing replacing the current text in that section with the following paragraphs. I believe this warrants inclusion because this information is how the prosecution determined Simpson's motive for the murder. The old material was disorganized and included redundant information that is already mention elsewhere in the article. The new material is shorter - 325 words compared to 358 words - so it is not a WP:SIZE concern. There are more citations from reliable sources - books, newspapers...etc, so it not a WP:RS concern. All of the cited sources mention the abuse or the marriage directly so it is not a WP:SYNTH concern. I've included explanations in bold why some material was removed and other material was added so that there would not be a WP:NOTEVERYTHING or WP:NPOV concern. I believe I have enough WP:ONUS here to gain WP:CONSENSUS. If any editors have objections, please give me a correctable solution so I can fix it and it can be added to the main article.

Proposed new text:


 * Nicole Brown met O. J. Simpson in 1977, when she was 18 and working as a waitress at the Daisy, a Beverly Hills private club. Simpson was already married but the two began dating. Simpson filed for divorce in March 1979 and married Brown on February 2, 1985.  Their marriage lasted seven years and produced two children, Sydney (b. 1985) and Justin (b. 1988). Brown filed for divorce on February 25, 1992, citing "irreconcilable differences".
 * The length and content are almost identical but better organized than the current paragraph - they met, he left his first wife and married brown instead, they had two children and ultimately divorced.


 * According to Dr. Lenore Walker, the Simpson-Brown marriage was a “textbook example of domestic abuse.” Brown signed a prenuptial agreement and was then prohibited from working while married. She wrote feeling conflicted about notifying the police of the abuse because she was financially dependent on him. Nicole wrote about an incident where Simpson broke her arm during a fight but she lied and told the emergency room staff that she fell off her bike instead to protect Simpson from being arrested. She wrote about Simpson beating her in public, during sex and even in front of family and friends. Of the 62 incidents of abuse, the police were only notified eight times and Simpson was only arrested once.
 * I mentioned Dr. Walkers claim because she was a witness for the defense. I mention Nicole was financially dependent on Simpson because the public thought they had a happy marriage and these incidents of abuse were not atypical of a happy marriage. Dr. Walker said she stayed with Simpson for economical reasons and that was "eye opening" to the public and I think it warrants inclusion here. The second part where Brown concealed the abuse to protect her abuser because she was financially dependent on him was also "eye opening" to the public and warrants inclusion as well.
 * Brown said Simpson was stalking and harassing her after they divorced. This behavior is an intimidation tactic meant to force the victim to return to the abuser. Brown documented an incident where Simpson spied on her having sex with her new boyfriend. Afterwards, Brown said she felt her life was in danger because Simpson had said he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.
 * The stalking behavior is already mentioned in the current text so it is nothing new. Describing it as an intimidation tactic warrants inclusion because that is what the defense witness said in her book when describing their marriage. The incident were Simpson caught Brown with another man warrants inclusion because he threatened to kill her if he ever found her with another man - and now he has.
 * The women's shelter Sojourn received a call from Brown four days prior to her murder. She was considering going there because she was afraid of what her stalker ex-husband might do because she was refusing his pleas to reconcile their marriage and had reported a missing set of keys to her house a few weeks ago. They were later found on Simpson when he was arrested.
 * The phone call to the womans shelter and the missing keys is already mentioned so it is nothing new. The fact that Simpson was attempting to reconcile their marriage and she was refusing warrants inclusion because that is what the prosecution argued was the motive for her murder.

For Comparison, here is what the current text says:


 * Nicole Brown met O. J. Simpson in 1977, when she was 18 and working as a waitress at a Beverly Hills private club called The Daisy. Although Simpson was still married to his first wife, Marguerite, the two began dating. Simpson and Marguerite divorced in March 1979. Simpson and Brown were married on February 2, 1985, five years after Simpson's retirement from the NFL.  Their marriage lasted seven years and they had two children, Sydney (b. 1985) and Justin (b. 1988).
 * The first paragraph and mine are almost exactly the same. I just added the first sentence in the third paragraph to the end of my first paragraph. It flows better that way - they met, they got married, had two kids, then divorced. I removed the reference to the NFL because it has nothing to do with their marriage.
 * Simpson was investigated multiple times by police for domestic violence. Detective Mark Fuhrman responded to Simpson's Rockingham estate in 1985 on a domestic violence call. Brown was crying after Simpson broke the windshield of her car with a baseball bat. On New Year's Day 1989 Simpson beat Brown. She called a 9-1-1 operator and told officers "He's going to kill me." Simpson pleaded no contest to spousal abuse. Photos of Brown's bruised and battered face from that attack were shown to the court.
 * I removed the reference to Fuhrman's domestic violence call to Simpsons home as a WP:NOTEVERYTHING concern. The remainder of the paragraph is already mentioned in the domestic violence portion of the article, making it redundant.
 * Brown filed for divorce on February 25, 1992, citing "irreconcilable differences". Following the divorce, Simpson and Brown got back together and the abuse continued. Audio released during the murder trial of O. J. Simpson revealed that Brown called 9-1-1 on October 25, 1993, crying and saying that "He [Simpson] is going to beat the shit out of me". After this incident, the relationship would end for a second and final time.
 * I took the first sentence and added it to my first paragraph. The remainder was removed as a WP:NOTEVERYTHING concern. How many times they reconciled is irrelevant. It was the one time she refused is what is important since that led to her death. The primary incident was the one he was arrested for.
 * Brown had also reported a set of keys missing from the house a few weeks before her murder, which were found on Simpson when he was arrested. A women's shelter, Sojourn, received a call from Brown four days prior to the murders; she said that she was afraid of her ex-husband, whom she believed was stalking her. The prosecution did not present this information in court reportedly because they believed the judge would rule it to be hearsay. In addition, friends and family indicated that Brown had consistently said that Simpson had been stalking her. Her friends Faye Resnick and Cynthia Shahian said she was afraid because Simpson had told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.
 * I mentioned the call to Sojourn first and then the missing keys next because it flows better - she wanted to go to the shelter because she was afraid of her husband and that he might gain entry to her home because a set a keys were missing that he might have stolen. The remainder of the paragraph is already mentioned in the domestic violence portion of the article making it redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs)
 * WP:Pings only work with fresh signatures. I did not get pinged, and so neither did the other editors you pinged. You also did not ping everyone from the section about bloating. But either way, I doubt that they want to get deeply involved in this latest proposal of yours. It is clear to me that you do not have a good grasp on our policies and guidelines. I will need to take matters into my own hands and chop, chop away. I proposed to work with you in my sandbox, and you did not agree to it; you ignored it. In the meantime, sure, go ahead and add your proposed text. But, per the bloating section, if you continue to add and add to this article, you will be reverted. And also per what I and others stated in that bloating section, do not be surprised when I do start to chop away. If you edit war in that case, you will be reverted, and by more than one editor...because the way that I will edit the article will align with how things are supposed to be done here. Others will make this clear via a noticeboard and/or WP:RfC. It's that simple. And I won't buy into you cutting material just so you can add more material. Cutting should be appropriate, meaning it should align with WP:Summary style (and things like WP:Undue and WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

____

Samsongebre
Every single time I try to add more information on this page, Samsongebre always removes my edits and acts like he’s the owner of this page. I’m tired of it. I source everything I post so it’s not like I’m just posting made up information. It also takes hard work to add information and make edits and it’s really not fair how another person can just remove my edits just because it features information they don’t want to appear on this page, which is heavily slanted in flavor of the prosecution. Kayjewel (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed for contradictory claim about what Allan Park saw
Part of this article makes an uncited claim that Allan Park saw a "shadowy figure resembling Simpson" coming from the area of the Rockingham gate and heading to the south walkway before later reappearing and entering the front door of the house:

"He then testified he saw a 'shadowy figure resembling Simpson' emerge from the area where the Bronco was later found to be parked and approached the front entrance before aborting and heading towards the southern walkway. The same person then appeared shortly afterwards from the southern walkway and entered the house through the front door and the lights then came on."

This appears to be contradictory to most recollections of events that night. In the grand jury, preliminary hearing, and criminal trial, Park testified that he saw someone enter the front door of the house.

Also, It doesn't seem that Park could have seen the shadowy figure enter the south walkway since, on March 28, 1995, he testified that he couldn't tell whether the person was coming from the Rockingham driveway or from the area of the garage from the south pathway.

It's possible that this claim is a mistake. On March 29, 1995, Park was questioned about seeing someone "walking into the walkway," but that was in reference to entering the front door - not going down the south walkway where the glove was later found. Also, Simpson and Kaelin made an aborted attempt to search the property AFTER Park had seen the "shadowy figure" enter the front door.

This claim should have a citation if Park actually said this at some point since it is contradictory to most recollections of events that night. I have tried to find a source for this claim, but I have not found anything other than a few web pages that basically seem to repeat or rephrase the Wikipedia article.JEMASCOLA (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are referring to the second paragraph of the section "Flight to Chicago". The citation for the first paragraph is to Parks testimony (link). Parks did not mention the phrase "shadowy figure", he just said "a figure" and he only saw that figure enter the front door from the driveway. Parks said nothing about the walkway in the back of the house. The prosecution use the phrase "shadowy figure" on their map of the estate (link). I have corrected the prose and added the same citation to it. Let me know if you think it is better now. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Admissibility of testimony after selling a story to a newspaper.
I reverted edits by and they reverted me here. I have reverted them again and am starting a discussion here. Angelgreat asserts that "If a potential witness sells or tells their story publicly BEFORE they testify in court, it it automatically INADMISSIBLE". This is not true as far as I can tell. I cite an LA Times story where it seems to say such testimony is admissible, but may not seem credible. Angelgreat needs to present citations to support their assertions. I would say more, but real life calls to me. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

$480 million productivity claim
This needs a better citation. While the text does appear in the book, the claim does not originate from that book. You can check out the book for free on archive.org to verify, but the claim comes with a citation. The citation is just "See my earlier book", no page provided. Someone with the time and interest can read the 400 page book and figure out where this claim comes from and if the claim is valid if they want and then properly cite it. But I don't really see the current citation as valid.--222.109.91.138 (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Too long
The article is way too long to read comfortably, at 100k chars of readable prose. It just means a lot of this won't be read at all. (see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.) I saw some discussions in archives where editors felt the trial was complex and thus it would be long, but then I'd suggest we use spin-off pages with the full details and link to them using main. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * We have this same discussion about this article every year. First, I appreciate your position but I want to note that the length of this article is similar to those of other famous trials such as the Trial of Conrad Murray, Trial of Casey Anthony, Trial of Scott Peterson, Trial of Bill Cosby, Trial of George Zimmerman, Trial of Derek Chauvin and the Trial of Michael Jackson. This article was specifically expanded upon because previous editors omitted key details from the trial including the entire contamination claim - the “heart of the defenses case against the DNA evidence” and all of the blood planting claims - the “heart” of the defenses frameup claim. In fact, five of the six people accused in the conspiracy to frame Simpson were not mentioned. Omitting these details gives the reader a biased impression of the case and this trial became historic because of the polarizing response to the verdict which was directly caused by the media selectively reporting facts from the case and if we shorten the length of the article by eliminating facts as the previous editors did, we run the risk of garnering the same response. To be fair though, we did create two spin-off articles from this one to shorten it already: the DNA evidence and the reaction to the verdict. I don’t think shortening it any further wound improve it though.WP:LENGTH says we should split up large articles but that isn’t feasible with articles about trials (versus articles on topics like WWII) because they cannot be logically split up. That is probably why those articles tend to be longer. Wiki policy should be updated to reflect that.Samsongebre (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those articles have passed any peer review process, so it seems a bit like WP:OSE. They may well be too long, but I don't have time to review them all. I did review this article, and made several trimmings of extraneous information and trivia. Thus, it's hard to say the length of this article is such because there's really so much that needs to be talked about. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Fuhrman's taking the fifth
I've added to the main article that "Fuhrman, facing possible prosecution for perjury, was instructed by his attorney to invoke the fifth amendment. I've cited five reliable sources on google books with page numbers - Outrage, blood evidence, Run of his life, Murder in Brentwood, and reasonable doubts that explain why this is true. The logic behind this is simple: the Fuhrman tapes only establish that he have lied when he denied having said the word Nigger in the last 10 years, but Ito himself said that neither the tapes nor the defense have provided any evidence of fraud. The trial has been made famous by the fact that selective reporting of facts have led to a distorted public opinion regarding the verdict. Ito ruled specifically that the reason why he refused to allow the jury to hear Fuhrman take the fifth is because the they often interpret that to imply guilt even though by law it doesn't. If we don't include that fact here than wikipedia readers will also do the same as well which is why I believe it should be included here.Samsongebre (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is still WP:SYNTH - you are putting two things together to try and encourage the reader to reach a specific conclusion not suggested in any of the sources. We cannot attempt to "correct" what the readers think without a source supporting that. --Aquillion (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In my discussion with Samsongebrer at User_talk:Samsongebre the user writes [in] Murder in Brentwood, Fuhrman's book on the trial, where he states specifically on page 247 that he took the fifth because of the possibility of being charged with perjury. This seems to me to be an acceptable source for the claim. It does not rely on anything other than Fuhrman's own statement. Meters (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite to shorten article (2021)
I'm planning on reorganizing this sections of this article to shorten and make the passage flow more fluently. Reaction to the verdict - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs)

Acquittal and aftermath
African American LAPD Police Chief Willie Williams indicated that he had no plans to reopen the investigation, saying of the acquittals, "It doesn't mean there's another murderer." The LAPD also declined to reexamine the evidence with modern methods because Simpson can not be tried for the same crime again under the Fifth Amendment.

Legislative changes
The strong public reaction to Brown's letters and statements describing her abuse spurred passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, which Clark and Douglas referred to as the "O.J. rule". After the trial, researchers reported increased reporting, arrests, and harsher sentences for those convicted of domestic violence.

Analysis of Polling data
After the verdict, polling showed that 75% of White Americans thought Simpson was guilty while 70% of African Americans thought he was innocent. An NBC poll taken 10 years later in 2004 reported similar results with 87% of whites believing Simpson was guilty compared to only 27% of African Americans believing so. In 2016, 20 years after the verdict, polling showed the gap had narrowed with a majority of both now believing he was guilty: 83% of white Americans and 57% of black Americans.

Political Impact and Civil Rights
Scholarly consensus is that the trial damaged race relations in America and point to polling which shows that belief in Simpson’s guilt depended on the race of the individual and not on the evidence against him. Analysis of the "racial gap" in polling shows that it did not cross the political spectrum. Conservatives regardless of race or gender thought Simpson was guilty. Where the gap emerged was among liberals - with black liberals believing Simpson was innocent while white liberals thought he was guilty. African American Stanford University Law Professor Richard Thompson Ford wrote that this made the verdict a wedge issue that divided liberals along racial lines as white liberals felt the verdict was a racially motivated jury nullification and resented the images of African Americans celebrating the verdict. Opponents of civil rights seized upon the situation and rebranded themselves as advocating "race neutrality", instead of “separate but equal”. The trial is believed to have influenced white liberals because of the acquittal of Simpson, and is credited with contributing to passage of California proposition 209 in 1996 that ended affirmative action in the state. A historic drop in diversity in the University of California followed, which led to a similar lack of diversity seen in the state's White-collar job market, particularly the High tech area of Silicon Valley. Opponents tried to pass Proposition 54 to effectively conceal the effects of prop 209 but voters rejected that measure.

Years later the police murder of George Floyd in 2020 revived empathy for racial injustice among white liberals. But the attempt in 2020 to repeal prop 209 was unsuccessful, a result attributed to the Simpson verdict and undermining of race relations.

Polling shows that minorities were divided by the verdict as well. Latinos and African Americans both believed that fraud was taking place in the LAPD but disagreed on the cause. Simpson said he felt vindicated by the Rampart Scandal, which proved that fraud was happening in the C.R.A.S.H anti-gang unit. It was not shown to be racially motivated: all the officers involved were minorities. Some were found to be affiliated with one of the gangs they were supposed to be policing.

Publications
Several jurors together published Madame Foreman (1995) to respond to allegations the verdict was racially motivated. They concluded that Simpson probably was guilty, but the prosecution failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Johnnie Cochran published Journey to Justice (1996) about the trial. He denied he played the "race card" and maintains the LAPD tried to frame Simpson.

Robert Shapiro published The Search for Justice (1996). He concluded there was reasonable doubt of Simpson's guilt and criticized Bailey and Cochran for bringing race into the trial. In contrast to Cochran's book, Shapiro wrote "I never believed that Simpson was being victimized by a racist police organization because he was black…or that he was seen as a black hero.”

Marcia Clark published Without a Doubt (1998). She opines that the acquittal demonstrates the legal system is compromised by race and celebrity. The prosecution's physical evidence should have easily convinced the jury to convict Simpson.

Christopher Darden published In Contempt (1998). He attributes the acquittal to poor stewardship by a "starstruck" Judge Ito and a “dysfunctional and uneducated” jury.

Vincent Bugliosi published Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder (1997). He believed that Simpson was guilty and blames the verdict on an incompetent jury, prosecution, and Judge. He wrote that "Other than when a killer is apprehended in the act, I have never seen a more obvious case of guilt. All of the evidence - not some or most of it - points irresistibly to Simpson's guilt and his guilt alone."

Henry Lee published Blood Evidence: How DNA Is Revolutionizing The Way We Solve Crimes (2003), writing that both of the defense's forensic DNA experts, Lee and Edward Blake, had rejected Scheck’s contamination claim.

Mark Fuhrman published Murder in Brentwood (1998), defending himself against fraud claims. He wrote that he took the 5th amendment to avoid prosecution for perjury.

Tom Lange and Philip Vannatter published Evidence Dismissed: The Inside Story of the Police Investigation of O.J. Simpson (1997). They defended themselves against allegations of corruption and incompetence.

Daniel M. Petrocelli published Triumph of Justice: The final judgement of the Simpson Saga (1998) and compares the criminal and civil trials. He attributes the acquittal to bad rulings by Judge Ito, unethical behavior by the defense, and unreliable testimony from Gerdes, Rieders, Lee, and Baden.

Darnell Hunt published O. J. Simpson Facts and Fictions: News Rituals in the Construction of Reality (1999). He wrote that the racial gap in polling is a manufactured product of selective reporting of facts by the media. He criticized them for treating the trial as a form of entertainment and not as a legal proceeding.

If I Did It
In November 2006, ReganBooks announced release of a book ghostwritten by Pablo Fenjves, based on interviews with Simpson, and titled If I Did It. The publisher said it was a hypothetical confession. The book's release was planned to coincide with a Fox special featuring Simpson. On November 20, News Corporation canceled the project due to public criticism.

Later, the Goldman family was awarded the rights to the book in keeping with the settlement of the civil trial. They published it under the title If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer. On March 11, 2018, Fox broadcast Simpson's previously unaired interview in a special titled O.J. Simpson: The Lost Confession?. The interview was interpreted as being a form of implied confession because Simpson used first person language (“I must have”) in explaining how he committed the murders.

Post-trial interviews
In an interview with Barbara Walters, Shapiro, who is Jewish, said he was offended by Cochran comparing Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler. He said that he would never work with Bailey or Cochran again. He also said that the defense played the "race card," "from the bottom of the deck". Robert 's home, that the defense team had switched out his photos of white women for photos of his children and switched out a picture of a nude [[Paula Barbieri (Simpson's girlfriend at the time, who was white) for a Norman Rockwell painting from Cochran's office.

Simpson gave two high-profile interviews regarding the case – in 1996 with Ross Becker and in 2004 with Katie Couric. In the February 1998 issue of Esquire, Simpson was quoted as saying, "Let's say I committed this crime ...even if I did this, it would have to have been because I loved her very much, right?". In April 1998, Simpson did an interview with Ruby Wax and pretended to stab her using a banana in an apparent joke referencing the stabbing death of his wife. In May 2008, Mike Gilbert released his book How I Helped O.J. Get Away with Murder, which quotes Simpson allegedly saying: "If she hadn't opened that door with a knife in her hand ... she'd still be alive."

In the documentary O.J.: Made in America, juror Carrie Bess, said she believed "90% of the jury actually decided to acquit Simpson as payback for Rodney King". Juror Lionel Cryer, who gave Simpson a Black Power salute after the verdict, said in retrospect he would render a guilty verdict. Juror Anise Aschenbach, who initially voted guilty before changing her vote, stated she regrets the decision. She believes Simpson is guilty because he is not looking for the "real killer" as he had promised he would.

Civil trial
In 1996, Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufo, the parents of Ron Goldman, and Lou Brown, father of Nicole Brown filed a civil suit against Simpson for wrongful death. The Plaintiffs were represented by Daniel Petrocelli and Simpson by Robert Baker. Presiding Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki’s did not allow the trial to be televised, did not sequester the jury, prohibited the defense from alleging racism by the LAPD and from attacking the crime lab. The physical evidence did not change but additional evidence of domestic violence was presented. Some 31 pre-1994 photos of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were presented, as these were a point of contention in the criminal trial. One such photo was published 6 months before the murders, so it could not be a forgery. Results from a polygraph test that Simpson denied taking showed "extreme deception" when he denied committing the murders. Fuhrman did not testify, but Simpson did on his own behalf and lied several times.

The jury found Simpson liable for the murders and awarded the victims' families $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Simpson filed for bankruptcy afterward and relocated to Florida to protect his pension from seizure. His remaining assets were seized and auctioned off; most were purchased by critics of the criminal verdict to help the plaintiffs recoup the costs of litigation. Simpson's Heisman Trophy was sold for $255,500 to an undisclosed buyer. All the proceeds went to the Goldman family. They said that have received only 1% of the money that Simpson owes from the wrongful death award.

Later developments
In 2008, Simpson was convicted of using a deadly weapon to commit kidnapping, burglary and armed robbery. He said that he was trying to get some of the belongings he had forfeited during his bankruptcy. He was convicted and sentenced to 33 years in prison.

The sentence was higher than that given to his two co-conspirators. Some speculated the harsher sentence was related to the 1994 murders.

On July 20, 2017, a Nevada parole board voted unanimously to grant Simpson parole after he served nine years of his sentence. He was released on Sunday, October 1, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida, where he moved in 2000.

Kardashian was given a role on Simpson's legal team. The Daily Beast suggested that this, combined with press coverage of the trial, were catalysts for the Kardashian family achieving celebrity status. While Kardashian's ex-wife Kris Jenner was already married to former Olympic gold medalist Caitlyn Jenner at the time of the trial, the rest of the family was mostly out of the public eye. Slate also reported on the Kardashians becoming noted because of Simpson's trial and notoriety.

Ford Motor Company discontinued the Bronco in 1996 after a 31-year run. They replaced it with the Ford Expedition, denying that the decision was related to the Simpson Bronco chase. More than a decade later, Ford decided to revive the Bronco as a Jeep Wrangler competitor and unveiled it on July 13, 2020. Ford initially planed for July 9, but multiple social media reports noted that this was Simpson's birthday.

Alternate theories and suspects
Stephen Singular published Legacy of Deception: An Investigation of Mark Fuhrman and Racism in the L.A.P.D. (1995) It contains the same fraud claims the defense made at trial, ut suggests that Fuhrman, not Vannatter, planted the blood evidence.

Singular cited an unnamed source in the LAPD, but both Cochran and Douglas dismissed Singular's claims. They said that Fuhrman never had access to Simpson's reference vial. Singular also claimed that Fuhrman had a relationship with Nicole Brown. The defense rejected that claim as well after their investigation concluded that the only contact he had with her was during the 1986 domestic violence call to Rockingham.

Writer Darnell M. Hunt opined that the claims of alternate theories or suspects were attempts to tap into the public interest in this case and were never meant to be taken seriously. He analyzed the case across social and political lines.

In 2000, the BBC released a TV movie about the case, entitled O.J.: The Untold Story. It primarily rehashes the contamination and blood planting claims from the trial.

William Dear published O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It (2012).

According to Ezra Edelman, director of the documentary O.J.: Made in America (2016), no plausible alternative theory of a perpetrator has emerged since the trial. Such alternative theories have been rejected by the trial's participants.

Alternative theories of the murders have suggested they were related to the Los Angeles drug trade and the murders of Michael Nigg and Brett Cantor.

In the 2012 documentary film ,My Brother the Serial Killer, convicted murderer Glen Edward Rogers confessed to being involved in the murders and said that he had been hired by Simpson to commit the crimes. The families of Brown and Goldman dismissed these claims and accused Henry Schlieff, the president of Investigation Discovery, of irresponsibility. He said that he believed Simpson was guilty. He said the documentary was not intended to prove Rogers committed the crimes.

Refs
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is so biased and full of lies
This entire page is biased and full of lies. If you want to know the truth about the OJ trial, watch the Court TV docuseries OJ25. After watching it you’ll quickly realize that the true facts of the case are not reflected accurately in this article AT ALL. And whoever edited my information about Stephen Singular and his book Legacy of Deception: An Investigation of Mark Fuhrman and Racism in the LAPD is a jerk. Kayjewel (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Though I don't think Court TV is a good source, there is a clear bias against the defendant in this article, and it is not written from a neutral point of view. It is very much written as if the defendant was guilty. Also, after having watched many hours of the trial myself, I can say that there were many underpinnings of racism and malfeasance by the LAPD in this case that has been minimized or outright ignored in the article.
 * The title alone is inappropriate for the content and shows bias.
 * This article should have a neutrality disputed tag put on it at the very least. Nabeel_co (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article
There is a clear bias against the defendant in this article, in both the wording, the way facts are presented, where facts for the prosecution are stated quite strongly, and facts for the defense are stated in a manor which would lead people to believe they were not true. The article is simply not written from a neutral point of view. It is very much written as if the defendant was guilty, despite him being ultimately found innocent. The trial was laced with many underpinnings of racism and malfeasance by the LAPD. However, the article continuously minimizes those facts, and reads as if the claims are a stretch that the defense was making, as if the defense got away with something, yet all the malfeasance by the LAPD and prosecution has been minimized or outright ignored in the article.

The title alone is inappropriate for the content and shows bias. There are undeniable racist undertones in the case, and this article simply re-enforces them. Nabeel_co (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please state specifically which parts of this article are NPOV concerns so they can be fixed and the tags removed. I’ve been researching this case for four years and I have not found a single credible instance “the trial was laced with many underpinnings of racism and malfeasance by the LAPD” or the police trying to frame Simpson so if you do have it please provide it with a credible link so it can be added to the article. I’ll give you a few days to respond before removing the tags. The tags are only suppose to be temporary. So if there is a problem with the article let’s fix it and then remove the tag.Samsongebre (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Samsongebre (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This issue appears to be going dormant. The original person who posted the neutrality tag hasn’t posted any specific NPOV issues except the title which is being discussed below. I’ll wait a few more days before removing the tab to give them time to respond but afterwards I’m removing them. Samsongebre (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Murder Trial of O. J. Simpson; as an unopposed alternative that unambiguously defines the topical scope of the article. (non-admin closure) Colonestarrice (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson murder case → People v. Simpson – The current title is misleading as it suggests O. J. Simpson was the murdered one (see Lakshmikanthan murder case as an example). The proposed title is the case's common name (that is why I'm not proposing The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson). Kailash29792 (talk)  06:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is one of the examples listed at MOS:LAW where a common name is deemed preferrable to a legal citation. I agree with that; it would get cumbersome having this and O. J. Simpson robbery case at vaguer titles. I think the case is too well-known for this title to be realistically misleading. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The article at the very least needs to be renamed to fall in line with the rest of the examples in the list of exceptions, if that's the rational people want to use, however the titling for this case stands in stark contrast to the other examples, and is worrying, when you consider the raciest undertones of the case, and in the public's reaction. Both the behavior of the LAPD before and prosecution during the case, as well as the reactions from many people in the public who view this case as an example of a person getting away with murder, are deeply rooted in bigotry, racism and racial bias. This needs to be corrected, and at the very least needs to be renamed O. J. Simpson murder case → Murder Trial of O. J. Simpson
 * Nabeel_co (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose given two cases. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Because clearly nobody else with the incredibly rare name Simpson has ever been prosecuted! And also, of course, the article is not just about the trial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No article on a trial is just about the trial. The background information before the events and leading up to the events are also important parts of the trial. Nabeel_co (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why we don't usually title articles about crimes using the name of the trial! QED. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to Murder Trial of O. J. Simpson or just Trial of O. J. Simpson. To be consistent with other examples mentioned at MOS:LAW, and to make clear O. J. Simpson wasn't the murderered one. Vpab15 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)