Post Reply 
The People v. O.J. Simpson
Author Message
Bacchus Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 1,909
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 40
Post: #1
The People v. O.J. Simpson
FX has a miniseries out about OJ's murder trial.





An all-star (for TV) cast, and it looks like thorough account of what happened. Everybody knows the basics of the story, but the details are lost 20-plus years after the fact.

The first episode (of 10) is out now.
02-03-2016 12:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bacchus's post:
Prince of Persia
GlobalMan Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,028
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 67
Post: #2
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
Looks interesting, will watch. I grew up in CA, don't remember what grade I was in but I remember my teacher turning on the tv in class so we could watch the verdict. The story dominated everything at the time.

A few years later I was doing a police ride along with a family friend and he took me to city hall, ended up meeting judge Ito and one of the prosecutors, can't remember his name. Coincidentally, that guy and others I knew were all from Rampart Division, which it turned out later a bunch of guys were dirty at that station, kickbacks, drugs, killings.

L.A. in the 90's was wild.

Americans are dreamers too
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016 01:18 AM by GlobalMan.)
02-03-2016 01:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes GlobalMan's post:
Stun
HeyPete Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 825
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 12
Post: #3
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
I figured out from the timeline I was watching Speed at the 3rd Street Promenade - whilst the murders were happening about three miles away. Took Wilshire to the 405 and didn't notice anything at Bundy and Wilshire - which was about 5 blocks from where it happened. Didn't see anything and it was right when the cops would have been descending on the area.

Oh yeah, more importantly, Six from Blossom was two rows behind me in the movie. Made sure and got a loooong look at her ass on the way out. Back then, it was superb. She was kind of a butterface, but her body was choice.

[Image: 35541.jpg]
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016 01:59 AM by HeyPete.)
02-03-2016 01:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like HeyPete's post:
Stun, Avon Barksdale
The Beast1 Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,559
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 83
Post: #4
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
OJ was innocent.
02-03-2016 06:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Last Parade Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,456
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 11
Post: #5
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
I really enjoyed the first episode and am looking forward to this series. Not really knowing anything about the case other than what I picked up through pop culture & the verdict, it'll be nice to see it in-depth. The first episode at least makes it look like a slam dunk prosecution so very interested in seeing how it all falls apart!
02-07-2016 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Last Parade's post:
Dusty
johnbozzz Offline
Banned

Posts: 279
Joined: Dec 2015
Post: #6
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
Great pacing on the show thus far.
02-07-2016 08:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
YossariansRight Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,670
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 35
Post: #7
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
I was "ehhh" about the show, but the first episode was good.

The complaint I have is there were a few too many Kardashian references in it. I get it that the father (the real one that didn't have tits) was friends with Simpson and Fox wants Kardashian followers to watch.

If it does become a Kardashianfest, I'll stop watching.

“….and we will win, and you will win, and we will keep on winning, and eventually you will say… we can’t take all of this winning, …please Mr. Trump …and I will say, NO, we will win, and we will keep on winning”.

- President Donald J. Trump
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2016 09:10 PM by YossariansRight.)
02-07-2016 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like YossariansRight's post:
johnbozzz, Rhyme or Reason
Dusty Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,595
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 79
Post: #8
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
Watched the first episode. Pretty good.

Casting is a bit puzzling though. Cuba Gooding Jr is a curious choice. He looks too small to be OJ.

Take care of those titties for me.
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2016 09:13 PM by Dusty.)
02-07-2016 09:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Dusty's post:
johnbozzz, thedarkknight
johnbozzz Offline
Banned

Posts: 279
Joined: Dec 2015
Post: #9
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
(02-07-2016 09:13 PM)Dusty Wrote:  Watched the first episode. Pretty good.

Casting is a bit puzzling though. Cuba Gooding Jr is a curious choice. He looks too small to be OJ.

True, but I do think Travolta is extremely convincing as Robert Shapiro. Back in the day, I'd have cast Denzel Washington as OJ. But it's not the 90's.
02-07-2016 11:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes johnbozzz's post:
YossariansRight
Vigo_the_Carpathian Offline
Beta Orbiter
*
Gold Member

Posts: 77
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 31
Post: #10
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
I saw the first one. It was pretty good.

More than anything, I'm watching to see if they bring in O.J.'s son from his first marriage as a potential suspect:

Daily Mail Link

Quote:A Texas private investigator claims he knows who really killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman in 1994. And it wasn't OJ Simpson.
In a new book, 'OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It,' William C. Dear alleges Simpson went on trial, and was acquitted of murder, in an effort to deflect attention from the true killer: His son Jason.

Dear says Simpson was at the crime scene -- but not until after his ex-wife and her friend had been stabbed to death.

After a 17-year investigation, Dear says he has found circumstantial evidence that links Jason Simpson, 41, to the murders.

The private eye claims he dug through Jason Simpson's garbage and his abandoned storage locker in search of new evidence, the New York Post reported.

In the search, Dear says he found a hunting knife that forensic experts say is the murder weapon that was never recovered during the police investigation.

He also found photographs of Jason Simpson wearing a knit cap, similar to one that was discovered at the crime scene.

Prosecutors were unable to definitely link the hat to OJ Simpson, though hairs similar to his were found inside.

Dear calls Jason Simpson 'the overlooked suspect' and produced a documentary film released in 2010 detailing the accusations that he is the real culprit behind the murder.

...

Despite these alleged findings, Jason Simpson's DNA and fingerprints were never compared to those found at the crime scene. He was never interviewed by police, either, the Post reports.

No arrests other than Simpson's were made in the murders.

OJ Simpson was the prime suspect for the murders because he helped to cover up his son's crimes and, in effect, allowed himself to take the fall, the book claims.

'The LA PD and the district attorney had made a rush to judgement,' Mr Dear said.
At the time of the trial, Judge Lance Ito said from his bench: 'Those who say the criminal justice system itself is on trial may be right.'

The Post could not reach Jason Simpson, who is working as a chef in Miami, for a comment.

The paper reports his phone line as disconnected.

Right around when this book came out, I read an article that was much better sourced than this, but I can't find it. I suppose I should read the book and draw my own conclusions.

I do think this is an interesting case still though--as a red pill guy, I'm naturally skeptical of almost any accusation against anyone. This used to be called "a presumption of innocence," but I guess that's faded into history as the years have passed.

I know there's a good amount of evidence linking O.J. to the crime scene, but all DNA evidence that shows some of O.J.'s DNA might hold true for his son, too, right? I mean, if there are any DNA analysts on the board, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just how I understand the process now. Which is to say not very well!

Vigo

The Make $ Copywriting Datasheet
02-08-2016 12:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Vigo_the_Carpathian's post:
TheSearcher
TheSearcher Offline
Male Feminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 0
Post: #11
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
I always thought his son did it.
02-08-2016 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like TheSearcher's post:
YossariansRight, puckerman
JayJuanGee Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 5,967
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 74
Post: #12
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
(02-08-2016 05:22 PM)TheSearcher Wrote:  I always thought his son did it.


Well, there's no statute of limitations on murder.


Accordingly, if there is either probable cause or possibly sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury, then the son could be arrested.

OJ does have quite a bit of strange behavior that would lead people to the conclusion that he is really capable of carrying out such a murder; however, we never really hear much about his son or why his son was not considered as a potential suspect (especially after OJ was acquitted of such crime).
02-08-2016 06:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes JayJuanGee's post:
YossariansRight
YossariansRight Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,670
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 35
Post: #13
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
I've always believed the son helped OJ.

Onto the show:

-The scene where Robert Kardashian was praying for "Juice". Dude should have been praying for his daughters not to become the biggest sluts this side of the Sunset Strip.

-It was too much with the name spelling and chanting, little Kardashian fucks. Facepalmingly fucking gay.

-Speaking of gay, "AC" is a fucking cuck: "Juice's" first wife was "AC's" fiancé. He stole her from him. And the jock sniffer was that committed to him? Fag. Oh, and he got away with aiding & abetting.

-Where's Bruce? Mama San Kris was married to it when the shit went down. Guess Fox has limits on how freaky they want to get.

Episode 2 sucked. Let's see what 3 brings.

“….and we will win, and you will win, and we will keep on winning, and eventually you will say… we can’t take all of this winning, …please Mr. Trump …and I will say, NO, we will win, and we will keep on winning”.

- President Donald J. Trump
02-11-2016 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
PUA_Rachacha Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 330
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 5
Post: #14
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
Word has it that Cuba Gooding Jr. overacted his part. Any truth to it?

I may watch it if it comes out on Netflix. I'm a huge Bills fan and was crestfallen that one of our greats is a murderer*


* I have no doubt that he murdered Nicole Brown
02-12-2016 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes PUA_Rachacha's post:
robreke
JayJuanGee Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 5,967
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 74
Post: #15
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
(02-12-2016 11:23 AM)PUA_Rachacha Wrote:  Word has it that Cuba Gooding Jr. overacted his part. Any truth to it?

I may watch it if it comes out on Netflix. I'm a huge Bills fan and was crestfallen that one of our greats is a murderer*


* I have no doubt that he murdered Nicole Brown


I guess that I am more interested in your footnote rather than the actual OJ show.... hahahahaha

What's your theory on how he did it?

Was it him alone, and was it the same as the prosecutions theory that he came to the front door, and confronted Nicole and possibly killed her at that time, and then Goldman arrived and then he overpowered Goldman, or do you have another theory?

Ultimately, a rage of uncontrolled jealously, and OJ also may have been a bit of a spoiled brat, always wanting to have his way and to control things, which he did when he dished out capital punishment, whether initially intentional or not? Maybe at first, he just wanted to go teach her a lesson, but things got out of control? I guess there is a difference in the law whether the murder was premeditated or not.
02-12-2016 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
captainmack Offline
Male Feminist

Posts: 9
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 0
Post: #16
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
I'm really enjoying the show so far. I was a Sophmore in High School when this all went down. I always heard that David Hasselhoff was doing his big US Concert the day the famous Bronco Chase went down and that the Network dropped it for coverage of OJ. I was hoping for a cameo of Hasselhoff cussing OJ but no such luck. I do agree they are overdoing the Kardashian angle.
02-14-2016 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Bacchus Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 1,909
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 40
Post: #17
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
Episode 3 had a better pace than the last one. And it really laid the irony thick on the Kardashians, almost too much.

Best part was Johnnie getting the crank call.
02-17-2016 12:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
PUA_Rachacha Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 330
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 5
Post: #18
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
(02-12-2016 05:15 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  
(02-12-2016 11:23 AM)PUA_Rachacha Wrote:  Word has it that Cuba Gooding Jr. overacted his part. Any truth to it?

I may watch it if it comes out on Netflix. I'm a huge Bills fan and was crestfallen that one of our greats is a murderer*


* I have no doubt that he murdered Nicole Brown


I guess that I am more interested in your footnote rather than the actual OJ show.... hahahahaha

What's your theory on how he did it?

Was it him alone, and was it the same as the prosecutions theory that he came to the front door, and confronted Nicole and possibly killed her at that time, and then Goldman arrived and then he overpowered Goldman, or do you have another theory?

Ultimately, a rage of uncontrolled jealously, and OJ also may have been a bit of a spoiled brat, always wanting to have his way and to control things, which he did when he dished out capital punishment, whether initially intentional or not? Maybe at first, he just wanted to go teach her a lesson, but things got out of control? I guess there is a difference in the law whether the murder was premeditated or not.

I don't remember all the facts of the case, just that no one else has been prosecuted. The police and Brown family obviously believe that O.J. is the guilty party.

I think the way that Nicole was murdered and how O.J. fled the scene makes it appear that it was not premeditated. Probably a rage of uncontrolled jealousy, as you said. Football players are test-charged and aggressive men, who generally learn how to channel that rage on the gridiron. But sometimes, e.g., Ray Rice, they just snap. Probably the same thing happened to O.J.
02-17-2016 09:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes PUA_Rachacha's post:
JayJuanGee
Kish Offline
Alpha Male
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,148
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 6
Post: #19
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
Great series. The guy playing Cochran is amazing. I laughed so hard when Cochran whispers to Darden..."Nigga please".
03-03-2016 08:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Bacchus Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 1,909
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 40
Post: #20
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
(03-03-2016 08:04 PM)Kish Wrote:  Great series. The guy playing Cochran is amazing. I laughed so hard when Cochran whispers to Darden..."Nigga please".

Even better was Cochran telling Darden, "Whatever happens, don't do Fuhrman. Make the white people do him."

More than the glove, that's the moment that I'm looking forward to

Popcorn 2
03-03-2016 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bacchus's post:
Kish
TigerMandingo Online
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,723
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 46
Post: #21
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
Horrible overacting by all the big leads: Schwimmer, Travolta, and Gooding Jr. And the Kardashian references are annoying as fuck. Otherwise an entertaining show if you've got time to kill.

Final grade: C-
10-26-2016 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
fortysix Offline
Chubby Chaser
**
Gold Member

Posts: 347
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 7
Post: #22
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
Just finished watching this the other day (watched the whole thing over the holiday weekend).

My knowledge of the case going in was fairly limited, since I was pretty young when the whole thing happened, but after watching the show - the prosecution and the Jury really blew it.

There has to be some kind of conspiracy here - How could the jury not convict?!:

Quote:Evidence presented to the jury

The prosecution offered circumstantial evidence to show Simpson's guilt.[43]

DNA analysis of blood found on a pair of Simpson's socks found in his bedroom identified it as Brown's. The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7 billion, with odds falling to one out of 21 billion when compiling results of testing done at the two separate DNA laboratories.[19][43]

Both socks had about 20 stains of blood.[19] The blood made a similar pattern on both sides of the socks. Defense medical expert Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified that the only way such a pattern could appear was if Simpson had a "hole" in his ankle, or a drop of blood was placed on the sock while it was not being worn. Lee also testified that the collection procedure of the socks could have caused contamination.[44]

DNA analysis of blood found in, on, and near Simpson's Bronco revealed traces of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's blood.[45]

Strands of hair consistent with Simpson's were found on Goldman's shirt.[45]
Several coins were found along with fresh blood drops behind Brown's condo, in the area where the cars were parked.

DNA analysis of blood on a left-hand glove, found outside Brown's home, was claimed to be a mixture of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's. Although the glove was soaked in blood, there were no blood drops leading up to, or away from the glove. No other blood was found in the area of the glove except on the glove.[45][not in citation given]

The gloves contained particles of hair consistent with Goldman's hair and a cap contained carpet fibers consistent with fibers from Simpson's Bronco.[10]

A black knit cap at the crime scene contained strands of African-American hair.[10] Several strands of dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman, and the prosecution presented a witness who said Simpson wore a similarly-colored sweat suit that night.[10]

The left-hand glove found at Brown's home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson's home proved to be a match.[46]

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office could not explain why 1.5 cm³ of blood was missing from the original 8 cm³ taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.[47][not in citation given](correction: "Mr. Matheson [a prosecution witness and the chief chemist of the Los Angeles Police Department] did not dispute the defense's mathematics. Nor did he seem perturbed by what it implied. The way in which the blood was measured was necessarily inexact"[48]

Officers found arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with beating spouse Brown. Photos of Brown's bruised and battered face from that attack were shown.

Much of the incriminating evidence — bloody glove, bloody socks, blood in and on the Bronco — was discovered by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman. He was later charged with perjury for falsely claiming during the trial that he had not used the word "nigger" within 10 years of the trial. Later during the trial, with the jury absent, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination when asked "did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?"[47] However, Alan Dershowitz implied in a 2016 interview that Detective Philip Vannatter (not Detective Fuhrman) may have planted evidence on socks based upon the presence of anti-coagulant in the blood discovered on the socks.[49] Dershowitz further stated that the jury may have concluded that if the bloody socks evidence was fabricated by the police, then other evidence may have been fabricated as well.[49] F.B.I expert testimony appeared to show that the defense exaggerated the significance of the presence of the anti-coagulant.[50]

The bloody shoe prints at the crime scene were identified by FBI shoe expert William Bodziak as having been made by a pair of extremely rare and expensive Bruno Magli shoes, of which it was reported that only 299 pairs were sold in the United States.[10] The large size 12 (305 mm) prints matched Simpson's shoe size.[10] In the criminal trial, Simpson's defense attorneys said the prosecution had no proof Simpson had ever bought such shoes,[10] however, then freelance photographer E.J. Flammer claimed to have found a photograph he had taken of Simpson in 1993 that appeared to show him wearing a pair of the shoes at a public event, which was later published in the National Enquirer. Simpson's defense team claimed that the photograph was doctored, although other pre-1994 photos appearing to show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were later discovered and published.[51] It should be noted that none of these photos appeared until late in the trial and not during the "big shoe debate".[52]

Evidence collected by LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung came under criticism. He admitted to "having missed a few drops of blood on a fence near the bodies", but on the stand he said that he "returned several weeks afterwards to collect them".[47]
Fung admitted that he had not used rubber gloves when collecting some of the evidence,[47] although the blood that was tested ruled out Fung within published guidelines.

LA Police Detective Philip Vannatter testified that he saw photographs of press personnel leaning on Simpson's Bronco before evidence was collected.[47]

Evidence not presented to the jury

At the June 1994 grand jury hearing, Ross Cutlery provided store receipts indicating that Simpson had purchased a 12-inch (305 mm) stiletto knife six weeks before the murders. The knife was determined to be similar to the one the coroner said caused the stab wounds.[3] The prosecution did not present this evidence at trial after discovering that store employees had sold their story to The National Enquirer for $12,500.[3] The knife was later collected from Simpson's residence by his attorneys who presented it to Judge Ito and subsequently was sealed in a manila envelope to be opened only if brought up at trial. It turned out not to be the murder weapon because tests on the knife determined that an oil used on new cutlery was still present on the knife indicating the knife had never been used. The police searched Simpson's Rockingham estate three times and could not find this knife. Simpson told the attorneys exactly where it was in the house and it was promptly recovered.[53]
Jill Shively testified to the 1994 grand jury that she saw a white Ford Bronco speeding away from Bundy Drive in such a hurry that it almost collided with another car at an intersection.[3] She talked to the television show Hard Copy for $5,000, after which prosecutors declined to use her testimony at trial.[3]
A women's shelter, Sojourn, received a call from Brown four days prior to the murders saying that she was scared of her ex-husband, whom she believed was stalking her.[3] The prosecution did not present this in court because they thought that Judge Ito would rule the evidence to be hearsay.[3] In addition, friends and family indicated that Brown had consistently said that Simpson had been stalking her.[3] She claimed that everywhere she went, she noticed Simpson would be there, watching 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.[3]

Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. A jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled to Grier that he "didn't mean to do it", after which Grier had urged Simpson to come clean.[3] Ito ruled that the evidence was hearsay and could not be allowed in court.[3]

The Bronco chase, the materials in the Bronco including the cash, handgun, and disguise, were also not presented to the jury. Simpson's apparent suicide note and statement to the police were also left out by the prosecution.

A few months before the murders in 1994, Simpson completed a film pilot for Frogmen, an adventure series, in which he starred. Although the prosecution investigated reports that Simpson, who played the leader of a group of former United States Navy SEALs, received "a fair amount of" military training—including use of a knife—for Frogmen, and there is a scene in which he holds a knife to the throat of a woman, it was not introduced as evidence during the trial.[54]

The testimony of Rosa Lopez was recorded on videotape but not shown to the jury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 03:19 PM by fortysix.)
01-03-2017 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
puckerman Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,436
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 14
Post: #23
RE: The People v. O.J. Simpson
This is a very interesting documentary. At one point, you could watch all of it on-line. Now it's just teasers and ad copy. It makes a very compelling case that the murderer was actually Jason Simpson, OJ's son.

http://www.overlookedsuspectmovie.com/index.html

The investigator also argues that OJ did go to the crime scene and knew that his son did it.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 11:07 PM by puckerman.)
01-03-2017 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes puckerman's post:
buja
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Simpson give in to SJWs. Bye bye Apu supporttheright 53 6,387 10-31-2018 12:45 PM
Last Post: balybary
  OJ Simpson 20th Anniversary & Other Stories You Remember Vividly jamaicabound 23 9,808 10-02-2017 09:20 PM
Last Post: MKE-Ed
  Netflix Joins MTV In Lecturing White People in: Dear White People (Time to boycott!) John Michael Kane 131 44,790 05-03-2017 09:48 PM
Last Post: king bast

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication