What if O.J. didn’t do it? Film suggests serial killer—not Simpson—murdered Brown, Goldman

By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News | The Lookout – 18 hrs ago

Simpson, Rogers (AP/FBI/File)

Is O.J. Simpson innocent of murder after all? An explosive new documentary suggests that he is.

In the film "My Brother the Serial Killer," set to air Wednesday on the Investigation Discovery network, Clay Rogers, the brother of convicted serial killer Glen Rogers, claims Glen murdered Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman—the pair Simpson was accused—and controversially acquitted—of slaying in 1995.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/oj-innocent-glen-rogers-murder-nicole-194119077.html

hmmmm interesting...

Naw, it was the Illuminati.

What's his sentence, anyway? Is he doing life in prison? Many people suspected he did it, but you've got a few that believe that he was set up by the mob.

The father of one of O.J. Simpson's victims doesn't believe an alleged confession by a death-row serial killer -- who's now taking credit for the Nicole Brown/Ron Goldman murders -- telling TMZ, OJ's still guilty guilty guilty.

In case you didn't know, a famed serial killer named Glen Rogers -- who's currently on death row in Florida -- has allegedly confessed to murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman ... claiming OJ paid him to break into Nicole's home and steal $20,000 in jewelry ... and kill her if necessary.

The "confession" is the subject of a new documentary on the Investigation Discovery network, airing this week -- but Ron's dad Fred Goldman (a prominent figure in the 1995 OJ trial) insists it's just a BS story to market the show.

Fred says, "OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. The criminal trial showed overwhelming and monumental evidence that OJ Simpson was the killer. There was no contrary evidence other than guess, innuendo, and rumor."

Fred adds, "The fact of the acquittal at the hands of the jury will never wash away this murder from the hands of OJ Simpson, no matter how many Glen Rogers pop up on the media radar screen."

Fred and his lawyer, David Cook, add, "Nothing would change the fact that OJ Simpson murdered these people in cold blood."


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/1...z2Cm2dtffI

O.J. played a part, either as a killer or he set it up...

I always believed he did it.

Eighteen years and this guy "confesses"? Nah I'm not buying it. Nope.

if OJ hired him to do it then OJ can be tried for murder for hire. so let's take this guy's word.

Edit: no not murder for hire... solicitation or whatever it is. maybe conspiracy? but yeah double jeopardy would not apply as these are totally different charges.

[Edited 11/20/12 8:59am]

Well, fleeing in an SUV would have been an unecessary theatrical display then.

OJ did it.

I don't know why people would think this would exonerate him especially if HE hired him. And he still couldn't explain that cut he got on his hand when cops asked about it. So yeah lol

imago said:

Well, fleeing in an SUV would have been an unecessary theatrical display then.

OJ did it.

Exactly. The dude was too pussy to turn himself in at the time he did. Fuck Orenthal.

imago said:

Well, fleeing in an SUV would have been an unecessary theatrical display then.

OJ did it.

Why did he do it?

Graycap23 said:

imago said:

Well, fleeing in an SUV would have been an unecessary theatrical display then.

OJ did it.

Why did he do it?

He's one of those "if I can't have you, no one can" type of killers... he still hadn't gotten over Nicole and he killed Ron too because he thought he and Nicole were "lovers".

Timmy84 said:

Graycap23 said:

Why did he do it?

He's one of those "if I can't have you, no one can" type of killers... he still hadn't gotten over Nicole and he killed Ron too because he thought he and Nicole were "lovers".

Dude was divorced for several years. This makes no sense.

Graycap23 said:

Timmy84 said:

He's one of those "if I can't have you, no one can" type of killers... he still hadn't gotten over Nicole and he killed Ron too because he thought he and Nicole were "lovers".

Dude was divorced for several years. This makes no sense.

Several? They divorced on October 15, 1992. And they allegedly reconciled briefly around 1993 before breaking up again. So no he wasn't divorced for several years.

[Edited 11/20/12 9:50am]

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit".

I still at him saying after the trial, "I'm gonna find the real killer". That was the first sign that prove to me he didn't learn his lesson. Should've just shut up and played golf and mind his business. But no he had to have his mouth and actions keep him in the papers until finally he had to be sent to jail for a long sentence.

Timmy84 said:

Graycap23 said:

Dude was divorced for several years. This makes no sense.

Several? They divorced on October 15, 1992. And they allegedly reconciled briefly around 1993 before breaking up again. So no he wasn't divorced for several years.

[Edited 11/20/12 9:50am]

Lol.......dude, they were broke up 4 years.

They may have "officially" been divorced in '92 but it was over LONG before that.

Graycap23 said:

Timmy84 said:

Several? They divorced on October 15, 1992. And they allegedly reconciled briefly around 1993 before breaking up again. So no he wasn't divorced for several years.

[Edited 11/20/12 9:50am]

Lol.......dude, they were broke up 4 years.

They may have "officially" been divorced in '92 but it was over LONG before that.

A divorce does not mean it's "over".

Graycap23 said:

Timmy84 said:

Several? They divorced on October 15, 1992. And they allegedly reconciled briefly around 1993 before breaking up again. So no he wasn't divorced for several years.

[Edited 11/20/12 9:50am]

Lol.......dude, they were broke up 4 years.

They may have "officially" been divorced in '92 but it was over LONG before that.

NEGRO PLEASE!

Just because they claim it was "over" doesn't mean it was over. You seriously believe that?

Timmy84 said:

Graycap23 said:

Lol.......dude, they were broke up 4 years.

They may have "officially" been divorced in '92 but it was over LONG before that.

NEGRO PLEASE!

Just because they claim it was "over" doesn't mean it was over. You seriously believe that?

I'm not going by what I believe..................

Graycap23 said:

Timmy84 said:

NEGRO PLEASE!

Just because they claim it was "over" doesn't mean it was over. You seriously believe that?

I'm not going by what I believe..................

Sure you are, Gray. Sure.

Timmy84 said:

Graycap23 said:

I'm not going by what I believe..................

Sure you are, Gray. Sure.

In a court of law............he was NOT guilty.

Case closed.

[Edited 11/20/12 10:21am]

Graycap23 said:

Timmy84 said:

Sure you are, Gray. Sure.

In a court of law............he was NOT guilty.

Case closed.

[Edited 11/20/12 10:21am]

The case may be closed but that doesn't mean the truth is known. Innocent folks go to jail all the time, the opposite happens too.

CarrieMpls said:

Graycap23 said:

In a court of law............he was NOT guilty.

Case closed.

[Edited 11/20/12 10:21am]

The case may be closed but that doesn't mean the truth is known. Innocent folks go to jail all the time, the opposite happens too.

Exactly!

CarrieMpls said:

Graycap23 said:

In a court of law............he was NOT guilty.

Case closed.

[Edited 11/20/12 10:21am]

The case may be closed but that doesn't mean the truth is known. Innocent folks go to jail all the time, the opposite happens too.

True.

[Edited 11/20/12 10:36am]

CarrieMpls said:

Graycap23 said:

In a court of law............he was NOT guilty.

Case closed.

[Edited 11/20/12 10:21am]

The case may be closed but that doesn't mean the truth is known. Innocent folks go to jail all the time, the opposite happens too.

Is that not applicable 2 other court cases?

Graycap23 said:

CarrieMpls said:

The case may be closed but that doesn't mean the truth is known. Innocent folks go to jail all the time, the opposite happens too.

Is that not applicable 2 other court cases?

i would think that it applies to all cases.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Graycap23 said:

Is that not applicable 2 other court cases?

i would think that it applies to all cases.

So then ..............what is the point of the comment?

CarrieMpls said:

Graycap23 said:

In a court of law............he was NOT guilty.

Case closed.

[Edited 11/20/12 10:21am]

The case may be closed but that doesn't mean the truth is known. Innocent folks go to jail all the time, the opposite happens too.

Exactly. Plus everyone agreed that the case wasn't really handled properly. Not guilty perhaps, innocent? No.

Timmy84 said:

CarrieMpls said:

The case may be closed but that doesn't mean the truth is known. Innocent folks go to jail all the time, the opposite happens too.

Exactly. Plus everyone agreed that the case wasn't really handled properly. Not guilty perhaps, innocent? No.

I guess this is the only case where that question applies?