Current Events > Just learned a man named Glen Rogers admitted to killing Nicole Simpson

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLamJFQr/

Also apparently 4 of the detectives that worked the OJ Simpson case were convicted for planting evidence

I know I might be late but I was born in 93 so I wasn't there to know any details about the OJ Simpson case. Just have heard that he was guilty but got acquitted somehow

But after learning these details it makes sense that he got acquitted because the evidence send like he's actually Not Guilty.

Why is it that some people try to make it seem like he only got off because the Jury wanted revenge because he was Black and historically Black people have tended to get unequal treatment in the justice system? With details like this and others I can see why he was acquitted now after the fact. Definitely not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt

Man could you not link to a tiktok video

I'm not clicking on some trash TikTok link. But is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?

The people vs OJ Simpson is agreat watch

Irony posted...

Man could you not link to a tiktok video

Bandit_Keith posted...

I'm not clicking on some trash TikTok link. But is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?

That's where I just found out the information

After google searching though it seems to check out

https://youtu.be/WPIGotjq2YM?si=OaUlJVTo0B255N42

Hadn't known somebody else actually confessed to the murder

Maze_ posted...

The people vs OJ Simpson is agreat watch

I might watch it someday. Should be a little informative at least

Someone had previously posted a comment like this when OJ died and it's kinda true...

"The LAPD went to a lot of trouble to frame a guilty man."

I think people forget that not only was the case massively bungled, but the LAPD ended up in a massive evidence planting scandal a few years later. Suddenly it feels maybe not so impossible that, considering the improper handling of vials of Simpson blood, someone could have planted some evidence.

I think Michael Moore did it best when in his book "Downsize This!" he has an entire chapter about how OJ was innocent, only to be followed by a chapter of OJ is guilty. If the LAPD wasn't such a trainwreck at that time the case could very well have been a slam dunk.

2Pacavelli posted...

Why is it that some people try to make it seem like he only got off because the Jury wanted revenge because he was Black and historically Black people have tended to get unequal treatment in the justice system? With details like this and others I can see why he was acquitted now after the fact. Definitely not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt

Media circus + when one of the Black jurors was walking out of the courtroom they held up their fist which was interpreted as a black power fist.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e5b57357.jpg

Apparently many of the OJ jurors have been interviewed and still agree with their verdict. I wasn't born when the trial happened, but just reading the case facts definitely makes it seem like *at the time* there was reasonable doubt given the prosecution's and police's mishandling, and jurors' unfamiliarity with DNA evidence which was challenged by defense lawyers as not being reliable.

I don't know how the South Park "Chewbacca defense" criticism became a thing because the defense lawyers apparently raised valid arguments for the time.

One thing I've heard is the prosecution really screwed up the glove thing because OJ got to know he'd have the chance to put it on so he did hand exercises to bulk his fingers.

I was listening to a podcast documentary about the case, weirdly enough one or two weeks before he died, and one thing bothered me.

In the beginning of the show there was a voiceover of one of the police going like "well, OJ is off in (some other city) right now so it can't be him"
But then as the podcast went on they never resolved that bit and i don't understand

2Pacavelli posted...

Why is it that some people try to make it seem like he only got off because the Jury wanted revenge because he was Black and historically Black people have tended to get unequal treatment in the justice system?

He actually got off cause he was rich and famous not cause he is black. He had the best lawyer. The cops were star eyed at him. Even the chase they were super nice cause they were all huge fans. Dude was super privileged.

Saying he got off cause he is black is the not thinking much comment.

Edit: his lawyer team even got some harvard guy to assist or something who is famous now

Even if we believe everything Rogers says, he still implicates O.J. Simpson in the murder. I havent seen the info in a long time, but my recollection is that his account is that O.J. hired him to break into Nicoles house to steal stuff he gave her when they were married. O.J. then heavily implied (Rodgers might have even said ordered) that he would have to kill the bitch during the burglary.

There is a lot to unpack about the trial and the impact and such. But treating the confession of Rogers as some kind of exoneration for Simpson is ridiculous. Even if it can be trusted.

And I know tHe point TC is making about perhaps the prosecution was pursuing the wrong theory. But I think there needs to be more context here than: Someone else confessed. Yeah. Someone confessed to being hired by O.J. to burglarize and hurt his wife.

WingsOfGood posted...

He actually got off cause he was rich and famous not cause he is black. He had the best lawyer. The cops were star eyed at him. Even the chase they were super nice cause they were all huge fans. Dude was super privileged.

Saying he got off cause he is black is the not thinking much comment.

Edit: his lawyer team even got some harvard guy to assist or something who is famous now

Yeah, at the time OJ was a huge star and beloved public figure.

Doe posted...

I don't know how the South Park "Chewbacca defense" criticism became a thing because the defense lawyers apparently raised valid arguments for the time.

ehhhhhh

Valid in "playing to the jury" but no their arguments were pretty terrible. Highly emotional and dissmissive of DNA evidence.

As others have pointed out, OJ's fame, LAPD being absolutely incompetent/corrupt and the media circus got him off. Not strong legal theory.

His book is enough evidence for me. Why would an innocent man feel the need to write a book about how he woukd have done it? I have always felt that book was his way of bragging openly about his crime

There was reasonable doubt that he did it. He probably did it and with later knowledge he almost definitely did it, but at the time there was reason to think maybe not. Jurors aren't psychic and even if they were they're intended to find based purely on the evidence and narrative presented to them, not simply what they think/know to be true otherwise.

Doe posted...

One thing I've heard is the prosecution really screwed up the glove thing because OJ got to know he'd have the chance to put it on so he did hand exercises to bulk his fingers.

That is not possible.

Maze_ posted...

ehhhhhh

Valid in "playing to the jury" but no their arguments were pretty terrible. Highly emotional and dissmissive of DNA evidence.

As others have pointed out, OJ's fame, LAPD being absolutely incompetent/corrupt and the media circus got him off. Not strong legal theory.

Where did you get your law degree?

Revelation34 posted...

That is not possible.

Rather apparently his lawyers instructed him not to take his arthritis medication which made his hands swell.

The lead cop was known for planting evidence and getting false confession

Maze_ posted...

As others have pointed out, OJ's fame, LAPD being absolutely incompetent/corrupt and the media circus got him off. Not strong legal theory.

Establishing reasonable doubt by calling the reliability of the witnesses for the prosecution is textbook strong legal theory.