Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

TRENDING: OJ Juror Admits “Innocent” Verdict Was REVENGE For Rodney King

Has justice been dead in this country for years?

Has OJ’s death brought a new light on this as well as reveal how biased the jury was?

The blood trail went from the dead bodies of the victims at one of their homes all the way to OJ’s home and room and bathroom.

Despite the mountain of evidence OJ was declared innocent.

So the years went by and he got to enjoy freedom, a freedom that came to an end Thursday April 11.

One of the jurors admitted during an interview:

“Do you think there were members of the jury that voted to acquit O.J. because of Rodney King?”


“How many of you felt that way?”

“Probably 90% of them.”

“Did you feel that way?”


“That was payback.”


“Do you think that’s right?”

Shoulder shrug.

To those that don’t know, Rodney King was filmed on March 3, 1991, being attacked by police officers.

That video led to a trial, and when the officers were pronounced not guilty in 1992, the L.A. Riots began.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say this doesn’t sound lawful or right.

Was justice withheld due to bias? Due to a percieved injustice involving a completely different case?

Here’s a recap on the case from Deadline:

O.J. Simpson, the former NFL icon, broadcaster and actor, died of cancer today at the age of 76.

While celebrated for his athletic achievements, his legacy remains shrouded by the 1995 acquittal in the tragic murder case of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson Brown and her friend Ron Goldman. The trial became a news sensation globally that divided America due to the reaction to the verdict. Simpson was ultimately acquitted of both counts of murder on October 3 of the same year.

Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the “Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro. His legal council included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.

Here we see the 2 polar opposite reactions from the public hearing OJ’s verdict:

Here’s a CNN reporter that has a Freudian slip:


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!