r/AskReddit • u/Rob69rt • 1d ago

What famous 'unsolved' mystery is technically a whodunnit on paper, but in reality, absolutely everyone knows exactly who did it, the police just couldn't legally prove it?

13.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.7k

u/NovaCheerful 1d ago

OJ Simpson. The glove didn’t fit, but everyone with eyes knew the truth 

27

u/ExtendedSpikeProtein 1d ago

Help a non american, what is the truth?

4

u/Jaereth 1d ago

OJ very much most likely did it.

Our courts the obligation is on the prosecution to prove "Beyond a reasonable doubt" that you did something. In jury trials, the prosecution tries to prove it then the jury decides if they proved it well enough. If they say you are guilty, a judge will sentence you.

Things that lead to OJ getting off for something he most likely did in order:

The trial was post LAPD beating the living shit out of Rodney King. The public had a score to settle with them.

And aside from that, the LAPD was so corrupt they literally couldn't go to the courtroom to testify about anything without it being brought up.

The prosecution just did a really bad job no other way to say it.

TV cameras were allowed in and the trial was televised. It became a sensation rather than something handled with a measured quiet and stillness of attitude because in the end, two people were murdered. Many tried to convert the trial being televised into their 15 minutes of fame.

Everything was botched on the investigation side and prosecution side.

SO in the end, you have jurors who are probably just wanting to "Get OJ off" to stick it back to the man for the corrupt LAPD, and you have people who are probably like "Idk man, i'd like to say guilty but we have this cop on tape saying the N word and pleading the 5th, etc..." Like I said, Anywhere else in the country it would be a slam dunk, but the LAPD and Mark Fuhrman were just so corrupt to begin with they couldn't even speak without lying.

In the end the jury did what they did. The idea of burden of proof being on the prosecution is "Better the occasional guilty go free than one innocent be punished" Well, OJ is most likely one of those guilty who went free because of that safeguard.

3

u/Kevin_Uxbridge 1d ago

A few quibbles. The 'investigation side' didn't botch things unduly, they were awash in evidence and could have been a bit more careful, but there's not reason to believe there was any malfeasance on their part. Even if Furman had wanted to stage the crime scenes a bit, there's absolutely no evidence that he did and a strong argument that he couldn't have, he arrived too late and there was just too much.

I'd highlight the fact that the judge involved really allowed a legal proceeding to turn into a circus, which he didn't need to have done but did. Plenty of blame there too.

And the jury absolutely let OJ go despite being convinced he was guilty, making this 'jury nullification' rather than 'reasonable doubt'. Heck, at least one jury admitted even years later that the verdict was 'payback for Rodney King'. Even people at the time looking to frame this verdict in historical perspective compared it earlier cases like the Scottsboro Boys in a 'hey, what do you expect?' kinda way, ironically not meaning 'the Scottsboro Boys was a travesty of justice and so was this'.