In a lost interview tape from FOX in 2006, OJ Simpson hypothetically confessed to the murder of his exwife.
OJ Simpson’s ex-wife, Nicole Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, were found dead June 12, 1994. Nicole died from four stab wounds with little struggle. There was evidence of an attack with bruises on the right side of her head. The bodies were found two hours after their deaths and, while searching the scene, the officers found a bloody glove. When searching OJ’s house, they found the matching glove to the one previously obtained at the murder scene.
On June 17, 1994, OJ Simpson was charged of murder. He is later found not guilty and acquitted of both accounts of murder.
Many pieces of evidence were gathered such as bloody gloves, shoe prints, and hair evidence. The shoe prints recommend that OJ was the one who committed the crime since he had the same size and pair of shoes as the murderer. Although they couldn’t prove that OJ was guilty, former Supervisory Special Agent Brad Romanoff says that “evidence is evidence” and that OJ is “wickedly guilty.”
When the hypothetical confession came to light after twelve years, it just reassured the guilty verdict that Freshman Kaitlyn Brooks made after watching the documentary on the case. Brooks says, “This confession doesn’t alter my original thoughts because I always thought he was guilty.” She does believe that the evidence was enough to prove OJ guilty, but the fact that the bloody glove didn’t fit, swayed the jurors’ minds to not guilty. Brooks also says, “There is not only physical evidence convicting OJ Simpson of killing his wife, but there is psychological evidence, such as him not asking how his wife died, which points to his guilt in killing Nicole and Goldman.”
The media has influence this case in a drastic way by hurrying the case along since OJ was a celebrity and under the spotlight for his football career. Former Special Agent James Durand says, “I believe the entire investigation and prosecution were orchestrated by celebrities, politicians, and the media. If not pressured by these entities, the prosecution could have conducted additional investigations to show the applicability of the evidence disallowed.”
Due to double jeopardy, OJ couldn’t get charged again even if they find a substantial amount of evidence against him. Although double jeopardy refuses the justice system to charge OJ again, Durand says it “is a valid and necessary part of our legal system. When considered along with the right to a speedy trial act, it encourages the prosecutors/police to develop the case to its full potential before rushing to charge and prosecute someone, especially in a high profile case such as this one.” Romanoff says, “I never believed in double jeopardy. You should be able to come after them again.” These prove that double jeopardy can be viewed as either a negative or a positive, but it always has an impact on a legal case.