well there was a long history of documented physical abuse of Nicole, and she had told many people that she was afraid he'd kill her someday. there was also a great deal of physical evidence at the crime scene - his DNA was everywhere and he didn't even try to cover his tracks
You ain't old enough to have done it
Ted Cruz killed his first victim when he was -2, don’t let anyone tell you that you’re too young to succeed! 
Yeah, but what if I was?
What, you would go out and kill Nicole Brown Simpson apropos nothing is that the bit lmao
I’m just asking questions
She killed his car and stole his dog
What if both their bodies just did that
He did so under the orders of Leslie Nielsen
What if I did it?
I stole a heart attack gun from a fed by using one of thos dinosaur grabber toys
Well he was broke at this point due to legal fees and fines, so a provocative book makes sense if you want to sell. But it was seized by the victims’ families and he didn’t make anything.
pretty baller to get his book money
Plus they changed the title to make it look incriminating.
releasing a book called "if i did it" which switches from a hypothetical framework to first person over the course of the book
He literally didn't write it, nor title nor release it as is. A court ordered the book rights be handed over, and they then deliberately made it look like a confession.
good lord
who's they tho
The family of one of the victims
they didn't write the book tho, some other guy did as a ghost writer for oj?
Yes - A ghost writer wrote it, including claiming a whole bunch of stuff Simpson disagreed with. Once the rights were transferred, the family changed the title, cover and added their own extra text throughout to look extra incriminating.
trying to dig out info on this can you send me anything you've found?
I mean this is kind of true, but they didn't have the authority to change the contents of the book or the title.
The thing they did to try to make it look like a confession was the graphic design of the cover making the word "If" difficult to see, so that it kind of looks like it's called "I Did It."
I haven't read it so I can't comment on the veracity of shath's comment, but if it is true then it's not because her family changed the text of the book.
EDIT: you know what, looking into it more, it definitely does sound like more was changed than the cover design so I'm just going to say idk what happened here and it could be a significant rewrite, sorry CarbonScored
As well as changing the cover, they changed the "subtitle", and added in their own text throughout.
you know what, looking into it more, it definitely does sound like more was changed than the cover design so I'm just going to say idk what happened here and it could be a significant rewrite, sorry CarbonScored
Okay, so I want to pull back a little bit because I'm not an expert on this or anything, but my understanding is that the reason that they changed the cover in the way that they did is that they weren't allowed to actually change the title of the book.
Are you saying that they were allowed to change the title of the book but chose to only change the graphic design, or that they weren't allowed to change the title of the book, but that they were allowed to insert new text into it to make it look more incriminating?
Did you do it?
an amazing, storied life
What if I did it?
glove says no
The glove, among other things
How can we be sure anyone did anything or was anywhere? Even in cases where there were eye witnesses or DNA evidence, none of that is conclusive in the pure sense, it's just a testimony and occurrence. There's always a possibility that everyone is lying, the video evidence has been tampered with, the fingerprints were planted or perhaps the lab mistakenly identified them as so-and-sos when they were really someone else's. All we can do is determine based on the available knowledge and wisdom of the day how likely it was that a crime was committed based on the evidence.
With the case of OJ, there was a pattern of abusive behavior in his relationship with his ex wife, DNA evidence at the crime scene, and the murder itself based on the condition of the bodies of the deceased and the state of the crime scene suggested that the assailant committed an intensely violent act on Nicole and her friend, not characteristic of a botched robbery etc. Along with OJs testimony and his suspiciously timed travel arrangements, and in the absence of another theoretical perpetrator, there is a pretty compelling case against him.
I would just like to add his attempt at a "prank show" to this conversation https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800100/
Half the pranks being "Oh shit that's OJ Simpson! Didn't he kill someone?"
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.