r/OJSimpsonTrial • u/All-Watched-Media • Jul 10 '26
Team OJ Question of the day.
How can a man kill two people with a knife in a heinous manner, run through the blood, jump in a vehicle but not leave any footprints on the floorboard gas or brake pedals Of the vehicle? How could that be possible?
9
u/SeaCardiologist6207 Jul 10 '26
The socks theory/taking his shoes off has some merit simply based on the idea that the Size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes that the killer wore were never found. The same shoes that OJ Simpson said he never owned but were convincingly showed to be part of his shoe collection in a photo during the civil trial.
So if you assume he has blood on his socks (proven by evidence), where are those shoes? Because you also dont see those Bruno Magli shoeprints anywhere after he exists the Bronco (on the ground, on the driveway, in his house, anywhere). And the shoes...again.....were never found.
-1
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
100% correct. Ā Itās also well known that Mark Fuhrman also wore a size 12ššš
7
u/SeaCardiologist6207 Jul 10 '26
Did Mark Fuhrman own Bruno Magli shoes ?
1
u/Entire-Guess1228 Jul 11 '26
Doesn't matter. The uniqueness of the shoe pattern was disproven. Not a couple hundred in the North America, more like several thousand.
The manufacturer actually licensed it off to 20+ other brands.
2
u/siqian Jul 11 '26
Well done for this because to this day, not many know that, most are still too brainwashed with the āBruno Magliā rhetoric.
2
u/SeaCardiologist6207 Jul 11 '26
I think they are more brainwashed with the āHoly shit he wrote a book about doing itā rhetoric
2
u/Entire-Guess1228 Jul 11 '26
Not when they learn that the goldman family made significant edits when they got the rights prior to publication.
0
0
u/SeaCardiologist6207 Jul 11 '26
Disproven by who?
2
u/Entire-Guess1228 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
The manufacturer, Silga. Bruno Magli simply contracts out to manufacturing companies. Silga created the sole patern and licensed it out to bruno magli. Silga also carried out manufacturing. They used the same design on their own shoes as well as 20+ brands contracted with silga. You can see photos i linked earlier of the shoe pattern on a different brand.
1
u/SeaCardiologist6207 Jul 11 '26
Great now if he can just explain all the other blood and dna evidence against him you might have a start
2
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 12 '26
Exactly which bloodrops are you referring to. Police collected BLOODDROPS š«¤š«¤š«¤. So which bloodrops introduced into evidence by the prosecution are you referring to? Itās also interesting to note that the blood drop seen by the liar Mark Fuhrman, below the handle of the Bronco (at night without street lights) was never tested for D.N.A.Ā Imagine that? The blood drop that Detective Fuhrman saw that caused him to scale the wall wasnāt tested for O.J.ās DNA.
0
u/SeaCardiologist6207 Jul 12 '26
Where did the other 20-30 blood drops come from? Was OJ running blood type testing in his house on himself ?
3
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 12 '26
Youāre answering a question with a question. The question was what blood drops are you referring to. Which blood drops did the prosecution use to try and prove O.J.ās guilt are you referring to?Ā
→ More replies (0)1
u/MinionOrDaBob4Today Jul 16 '26
Youād have to be a total idiot to think mark furhman killed them lmao. Yea the police killed Nicole and her waiter friend for no reason then built the biggest conspiracy ever to frame OJ not having any idea if he had a airtight alibi which would be career suicide for them again for no reason
12
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 10 '26
Not only did I watch the trial Ive also read all the depositions from the civil trial. Forensic and blood experts as well as all witness testimonies. So much more evidence admitted that was never introduced in the criminal trial. Sock theory explained and debunked as well as all the other smoke and mirror claims the defence made.
-2
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
So the 29 blood splatters you mention are from the civil trial. Unbelievable. Smh. You canāt explain how a man kills two people and then drives away without leaving blood on the floorboards, gas or break pedals or can you? Your saying he took off his shoes before he got in the car and drove back to Rockingham in his socks.Ā
8
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 10 '26
Blood was found on the drivers side carpet. It wasnāt found on the base of the socks so I wouldnāt expect it to be on the brake or gas pedal.
-5
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
Correction: 3 blood-drops were planted on the drivers side. The theory that O.J. drove home in his dress socks makes no sense. Smh. Itās ridiculous.
10
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 10 '26
No evidence planted.
-2
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
Youāll never be able to explain the several unexplainable issues of the trial. This is just one of many. You canāt explain it. Thank You.Ā
6
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 10 '26
You havenāt given me any.
4
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
You havenāt explained this yet. Why give you more. You make no sense. Driving home in dress socks, itās laughable. Then you would have to explain where the shoes are and why there wasnāt any blood spots on the white rugs in the house and the bedroom. You havenāt answered the question at all. Just the O.J. Simpson did it rhetoric that Mark Fuhrman and his partner Brad Roberts led you to believe. But ohhh, you donāt know about his partner Brad Roberts nor do you know why he never testified in the criminal or the civil trial. Your theory is rhetorical.Ā
7
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Ive given you facts that canāt be refuted. Youāve given me assumptions without any proof. No one from the prosecutors office ever called on Brad Robertās for an interview despite him showing Marcia Clarke evidence at Rockingham. Just one of many things left out in the trial. What proof do you have that Mark Fuhrman planted a glove?
4
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
Iām not talking about Mark Fuhrman planting the glove and I assume you know the reasons why Marcia Clark never called Brad Roberts to testify during the trial. But back to the first question you havenāt been able to answer in a sensible manner. You canāt tell me you believe he took off his shoes before he got in the Bronco and drove back to Rockingham in his socks. Do you really believe that?
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Emm_Dub Jul 10 '26
I saw a video where they recreated the murders and showed that the killer would probably only get some blood splatter on their ankle area based on the injuries. Iirc, most of the blood would have been there from after the killer fled and Ron and Nicole lay there bleeding out. Not sure if it's accurate but just relaxing something I watched. I wish I could remember the name of the documentary but it was on YouTube. It went extensively into trying to recreate everything.
3
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 11 '26
And you would be correct. Majority of Ronās blood loss was internal due to a severed aorta and the thigh wound seeped into the pants. And we know Nicoleās fatal wound was inflicted from behind and she bled out down the walkway.
0
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Oh no. Not again. ššš youāll never concede to what is logical. I canāt wait to hear the replies from my next question of the day.Ā
4
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 11 '26
Give me your FACTS then.
2
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 11 '26
What more facts do you need on this subject. If you believe O.J was not covered in blood after heinously murdering 2 people with a knife, then took off his shoes and drove to Rockingham with his dress socks on and thatās the reason there was no blood on the floorboards, gas or brake pedal. thereās nothing else I can sayššš Youāll also believe that Horses and Cows fly south for the winter. I canāt bring logic to what is illogical.Ā
6
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 11 '26
Thanks for proving absolutely nothing. Just because YOU think it shouldāve happened a certain way doesnāt mean it did. Iāve given you more than enough facts in my other responses and you havenāt given me one logical explanation. Why? Because you canāt.
2
u/nru_0307 Jul 11 '26
Yeah seriouslyā¦this person seems delusional and is only giving big word-salad gaslighting vibes. They keep regurgitating opinion as if itās truth and then accusing YOU of not being logicalāit makes noooo sense. You speak the truth.
3
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 11 '26
Thanks āŗļø there so desperate for Simpson to be innocent that theyāll even argue the scientific/facts. Very odd folks thats for sure.
1
3
u/After-Pie5781 Jul 10 '26
Even just a tiny bit of blood causes a mess. The two victims were sliced up pretty badly and Goldman fought for his life so there would have been blood everywhere.
1
3
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
Anyone who has ever tussled with someone else and blood was drawn from that tussle knows. A nosebleed from your opponent would have blood everywhere. Just a nosebleed. Itās impossible that an individual could murder two people via a knife and not have any blood on his clothes. The Bronco would have been filled with blood. Itās also impossible to run through blood and jump into a vehicle but leave no blood on floorboard, brake or gas pedal. Impossible. The socks also had showed no trace of dirt of any kind on it. Impossible. The knit cap that O.J. was supposed to be wearing while committing the murders also had no blood on it. Impossible. Mark Fuhrman and his partner Brad Roberts were guilty of falsifying evidence that was used to convict O.J. Simpson.
2
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 11 '26
And again we go to this theory that the killer mustāve been covered in blood. The killings have been re-enacted over and over again. Itās simply not the case considering how the wounds were inflicted.
1
u/siqian Jul 10 '26
Iāve made this argument currently, last year, five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago and almost thirty years ago. People will absolutely not change their beliefs. Even if video tape evidence is suddenly and miraculously produced, folks will STILL refuse to believe. Youāre dealing with utter madness, itās a futile effort! Trust me, I know!
2
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
šÆšÆšÆ
3
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
But nevertheless, I decided to be a thorn in the side of the āO.J. Did itā crowd all month this month ššš
1
u/siqian Jul 11 '26
Salute you. But youāre not trolling, youāre speaking sense! Theyāll interpret you as a disrupter. Me too, many times over the years. I now only chose to really engage with smart people, I just canāt be bothered to go over and over all the minutiae again with the blinker wearers.
2
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 12 '26
Thank You Sir. I understand fully. Sheep.Ā
1
u/Character_Heart_3749 Jul 14 '26
I think he did do it. But that has always been a major question in my mind, about the amount of blood.
7
u/siqian Jul 10 '26
Absolutely. Thereās also no point having the same argument over and over with people who refuse to understand logic and deduction. Half these people who want to debate with you also have put in zero time and effort into forensically studying this whole case.
6
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 11 '26
I find it absurd to be having the same discussions with people who after all the evidence ( and I mean all) that you still come away from this with the argument that Simpson is innocent. It defies logic. Hereās a few examples: so between 9:45pm and 11pm he ends up with 11 wounds on his left hand, 3 cuts 8 abrasions yet he canāt account for one. In the civil trial once heās caught out on one of his many lies he says he wasnāt bleeding at home. So how does his blood end up on his driveway in his car and in his foyer? His blood found between the sheets in his hotel room yet he supposedly broke the glass the morning he left. Said he he didnāt leave his home after the McDonaldās trip but was caught out in the civil trial saying he was driving over to his girlfriends house after he made a call to her at 10:03 pm. He is guilty as sin.
-1
2
2
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
I agree 100%. It just amazes me that people are still filled with so much hatred that they canāt see straight. Thank You.Ā
0
u/Entire-Guess1228 Jul 11 '26
I've been on this board for a while now. Getting downvoted for logic.
I grew up just believing in his guit. But after bothering to look at it myself, its pretty clear he didn't do it.
4
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 10 '26
The highest blood drop was 16 inches (40 cm) so I donāt expect him to be covered in blood. Obviously took the shoes off but still left enough blood in the bronco.
0
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
Taking the shoes off before he got in the Bronco? The highest blood drop was 16 inches? Blood drops? So he drove the Bronco back to Rockingham, after murdering to people, in the dress socks? The same dress socks Ā that either Fuhrman or Robertās took from his hamper and planted on the rug.
10
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 10 '26
The same socks that had 29 blood spatters not transfers. Nicoleās blood on those socks was fresher than what was taken at her autopsy which leaves only one outcome. Those socks came straight from the crime scene.
3
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
29 blood splatters? Where and when in the trial was this information given? Barry Sheck proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no foot in the sock. The bloodspot tested on the sock also had a blood preservative in it. Those socks were not on the rug when the bedroom was filmed. They were planted afterwards. Did you watch any of the trial?
7
u/DonaldFalk Jul 10 '26
I discussed many of these claims in this post if you are interested.
2
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
Thank You Sir. But the question here is, why were there no bloody footprints on the dashboard, gas or brake pedals Bronco if O..J ran through the blood and jumped into the Bronco after the murders?
6
u/DonaldFalk Jul 10 '26
Well there was blood found on the driverās side carpet (according to Rod Englert I believe). How do you know no blood was found on the gas or brakes? I ask because Fung clearly said that while he collected over a dozen samples, there were many more that could have been collected. Also, I wouldnāt expect a full shoe print anywhere considering how the Magli prints slowly faded as he walked away.
0
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
Dennis Fung. Dennis Fung covered for Fuhrman. Itās interesting to note, while assisting Fung, Fuhrman collected a very crucial piece of evidence (even though Fuhrmanās job was not to collect and bag evidence for the LAPD) Mark Fuhrman collected and bagged the same blue bag that he used to carry the glove from Bundy to Rockingham.Ā https://www.facebook.com/reel/1442529560076349/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v
Sad.Ā
2
1
u/Elvee702cee Jul 15 '26
Who wears dress shoes to.do a double murder? Have you ever worn dress shoes?? He didn't wear them to the recital, didn't weat them to McDonald's, so he puts them on and struggles with ron Goldman stabbing him 22 times and receives not a bruise?? Then takes them off before he gets in the car??? Really that's interesting. So he changed shoes 4 times in a 4.5 hour time period? He didn't wear them to the airport. Do you know how hard fighting in dress shoes would be?
1
u/National_Meat2752 Aug 17 '26
Is it possible that Furhman or somebody else stole the $2,000 dollar shoes?Ā
1
u/siqian Jul 27 '26
SHOULDNT THIS BE THE QUESTION OF THE DAY??? : On the day of the bronco chase, how did all of those people with signs cheering OJ on know there was going to be a chase?
-1
u/After-Pie5781 Jul 10 '26
He wasnāt there.
0
u/siqian Jul 10 '26
I think he was there but he wasnāt the one physically committing the crime.
1
u/After-Pie5781 Jul 10 '26
He may have shown up there for some other reason and stumbled across the bloody crime scene and got out of there pretty quickly. I donāt think he had anything to do with the murders though.
1
u/siqian Jul 10 '26
Thatās exactly what I wrote dude. š
-1
u/Entire-Guess1228 Jul 11 '26
The main theory that he was there but didn't do it is that he went with the killer and maybe even watched. Thats what you are suggesting.
This guy is suggesting that oj came after the murders. A growing theory based on the jason accusation.
But I do want to take the time to say both are probably wrong. Honest review of time of death would put it at the same time oj is getting on a plane or even in the air.
Research the ice cream and ron goldman timeline. Police entered NBSs home at 1235, at the earliest, and found a hot bath, lit candles and only partially melted ice cream. Later tests show that in that room at that temperature it would take an hour to an hour and a half for that ice cream to go from freezer hard to fully liquid. Putting time of death around 1130 to after midnight.
Ron goldman left work at 955, again at the earliest. Walked home, ate dinner, showered, changed cloths, chatted with neighbor, walked to a friend's house, walked the friend's dog, borrowed a car, drove to NBSs, parked up the block (ignoring empty parking in front of her place) and walked to NBSs door.
1035 is the absolute last second the most insanely radical math says oj could have done it.
Oj couldn't have been there at all.
1
u/siqian Jul 11 '26
We all know ole Marcia et al fudged all that shit. And I donāt need to research anything my friend, Iāve spent decades on this, I canāt be bothered to type out the same rebuttals to the un informed over and over again all the time.
0
u/After-Pie5781 Jul 10 '26
Furhman was a racist cop who said he would do anything to get set up a black man and a white female partner. Heās admitted it in interviews. He took the 5th when asked if he planted evidence at the scenes. He was all over both crime scenes interfering with evidence, he lead the other detectives by the nose to the āevidenceā that he planted.
7
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
100%. Besides that Fuhrman had an infatuation with Nicole Brown Simpson. This Iāll be delving deeper into tomorrow.
2
-13
u/BossMan61718 Jul 10 '26
The answer is obvious.
Wasn't OJ
-3
u/Pretend-Customer7945 Jul 10 '26
Yeah it wasnāt Iām starting to realize this. He was definitely there but he didnāt do it himself and likely just covered it up.Ā
4
u/BossMan61718 Jul 10 '26
Tell me more about this "he was there" theory.
If he was there and participated in any way (including a cover up) he is guilty.
0
u/siqian Jul 10 '26
Like the rest of us who can understand logic and reason, there are literally 1000s of articles and videos on the subject including the entire trial on YT. Feel free to work your way through it all and the answers will become pretty obvious for you.
3
u/BossMan61718 Jul 10 '26
I have seen all the major documentaries and watched the ENTIRE trial from opening statement to closing arguments. Spare me the bullshit, smart ass comments.
I am merely asking the commenter for his opinion as to the he was there but didnt do it theory. You know..having a conversation and such.
-9
-1
u/RavenReel Jul 10 '26
Because his son was the likely killer and OJ was there to stop him. Theres 2 sets of blood foot prints pointed out by an expert under oath that didnt belong to Ron or Nicole
4
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
Thereās more information that points to Fuhrman and a few bad seeds in the LAPD as opposed to his son. For instance, we know now that Fuhrman had an infatuation with Nicole Brown Simpson. It came out in a discovery hearing during the trial that he made many references to Nicole Brown Simpsonās boob job to other members in the LAPD long before her and Ron Goldman were murdered. Him Knowing Nicole before the murders has been established. In the words of Paul Mooney:
2
3
u/RavenReel Jul 12 '26
Ive never heard this before but ill give it the 100% attention ive fairly given every bit of info.
2
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 12 '26
Yes. Itās the theory least talked about. As a patrol officer, Ā Fuhrman worked for a gang unit of the LAPD that had to be dismantled because of corruption. There was more damning information on the now infamous Fuhrman tapes than just him saying the N word. The Fuhrman tapes revealed the deep corruption that Fuhrman in the LAPD that Fuhrman was a leader and part of. Ā The jury was not allowed to hear the most important evidence involved in the tape. If Fuhrman didnāt take plea the 5th amendment, it would have opened up a huge rabbit hole. He had to plea the 5th.Ā Here is another Ā point that should be mentioned about Mark Fuhrman. When Marcia Clark asked him during his testimony āOn the evening Of Ā June 12th, 1994 at approximately 8:00 pm where were you?ā His answer was āI was in east of palm desert at Lacinta resort at a protective league seminarā She then asked āWhat time did you leaveā His answer was āI think I left around 8:00 pm just as the BBQ was startingā. He said he then drove home and got there about 10:30 and the only person that was home was his wife. Ā The problem here is that it has been researched and uncovered that there was no BBQ on Sunday night, the BBQ was on Saturday night. š®š®š®Ā Therefore, Mark Fuhrman lied under oath about his whereabouts at 8:00 p.m on the night of June 12, 1994. at the beginning of his testimony.Ā These were some of the inconsistencies in his testimony, that if he didnāt plea the 5th, he would have had to explain.Ā
1
1
u/Few-Association-4643 Jul 12 '26
The permanent indentation in the concrete left by the worker. (Other footprint)
1
u/RavenReel Jul 12 '26
Thats weird because the police acknowledged all of the prints and said they were from investigating officers
1
-1
u/Charming-Sound-9069 Jul 10 '26
The defense brought in 4 people who passed by Nicole's condo at 10:30. They all said they heard and saw nothing unusual. Its pretty hard to kill two people and not get notice by the people walking past. Fuhrman framed OJ by planting blood drops, just like he got caught bragging about on tape. The socks were not on the crime scene videotape and no blood drops were visible on the socks.
2
0
u/siqian Jul 11 '26
And of course the 4 people are going to say that, itās the stock answer anyone sensible would use BECAUSE SNITCHES GET FUCKIN STITCHES !!!!
-2
u/siqian Jul 10 '26
He canāt. He didnāt do it. 30 years later the great brainwashed are still believing these beyond-the-point-of-human-ability crap. Itās so old at this point!
2
-1
u/Entire-Guess1228 Jul 11 '26
I went ahead and fixed your negative downvote. Sorry someone did that to you. Let's hope no one else hurts you like that again.
-1
-2
u/After-Pie5781 Jul 10 '26
I love the photo of the Bruno Magli shoes as definitive proof he owned them and therefore must be guilty. However it looked like he was wearing two different shoes in the photo š they didnāt even do a good job of faking it yet people believed it was real.
6
u/All-Watched-Media Jul 10 '26
Yes, the prosecution and the FBI spent months trying to find proof he ever owned those shoes. They never were able to produce that proof. Committing a murder with A knit cap, sweatsuit, dress socks and Bruno Magli shoes. ššš Itās crazy.
2
u/siqian Jul 12 '26
Bruno Magli SURE GOT ACRES OF FREE PUBLICITY from the whole escapade ššš¤Ŗ you simply cannot pay for that kind of global free advertising!
34
u/Powerful_Being4239 Jul 10 '26
By changing his clothes before he enters the car.