SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Michael_Elliott Is O.J. Innocent? The Missing Evidence (2017) You can check out the individual episodes to hear my thoughts on each of the six but this here is just an overview. This six-part television special has Martin Sheen narrating as an investigator presents new evidence that he claims proves that O.J. Simpson was not guilty of the murders and he points the finger at his oldest son. From here a couple detectives join the case and comb through the evidence to see if they can prove that there was someone else who did the murders.Again, you can read my thoughts on each episode but I must asy that for the most part I enjoyed this special even though it ends with a major dud and in my opinion the sixth episode is the least entertaining. The highlight of the entire series is the fact that we get some new interviews with many of the key players in the trial including Fred Goldman, Tanya Brown, Detective Tom Lange, Henry Lee, Allan Park, Andrea Scott, Ron Shipp and Kato Kaelin.The episodes present some rather interesting bits of evidence and the series does a very good job at pulling you along just like an old-fashion cliffhanger. They build up your interests, present the story and then they usually leave you with more questions. Throughout the series I was interested in what was going on but it seems every piece of evidence would then lead me to ask several other questions. The Simpson book "If I Did It" is called into play and we're asked to believe the book just in case Simpson told the truth in it.I'm a Simpson buff and will watch any film or documentary that deals with him. I found the first five episodes to be highlight entertaining and thanks in large part to the new interviews. There's some interesting ideas brought up here but I think most of it gets flushed down the toiled during the final ten-minutes of the last episode. I don't know, I just feel like the producers of this were playing a joke the entire time as it really just doesn't end very well.Still, if you're enjoy stuff dealing with the case then it's worth watching.

lavatch The verdict in the 1995 trial of the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson was an embarrassment for the City of Los Angeles. With the passing of over two decades, the District Attorney would certainly not be interested in reopening the case to examine the evidence presented in this television series. In so doing, city officials would only be admitting their own incompetency in the "trial of the century."Neither are the American people interested in exploring the new evidence presented in this series. The lazy public has already made up its mind about O.J. Simpson's guilt. Even a recent Oscar-winning documentary series neglects to look at the evidence, focusing instead on broader themes of race and society.But for the thoughtful viewer, this series and the book written by William C. Dear ("O.J. Is Innocent") offer the compelling case that O.J.'s son Jason Lamar Simpson should have at least been considered a significant suspect in the case. Instead, he was never interrogated by the LAPD, his background was not thoroughly examined, and his flimsy alibi was not subjected to close scrutiny.Jason Simpson's upbringing included the tragic death of his younger sister in which Jason had been asked to watch her. He failed in his task, she drowned in the family swimming pool, and he had to carry the trauma of that loss of life. By his teens, he was addicted to alcohol and was experiencing bouts of uncontrollable rage. At the time of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, Jason Simpson was on probation for assaulting his employer. One of the neighbors of Nicole Simpson appears on camera testifying that Nicole believed that Jason was stalking her. One of the witnesses in this program describes the "sexually charged" environment of the dysfunctional Simpson family.Jason's alibi on the night of the murders is a tissue of lies and obfuscation. The copy of the time card for his work at Jackson's Restaurant on the night of June 12, 1994, does not even list the dates alongside the hours. One of the times is hand written, as opposed to machine stamped. The time cards for the employees had labels affixed at the top. In this time card, however, Jason Simpson's name is hand written at the top. The restaurant owner who supported Jason's alibi was not even present in the restaurant on June 12, so he could not have known when Jason left work that evening. Jason's girlfriend's account conflicts with Jason's deposition given during the civil trial. The most important eyewitness is Carlos Ramos, a busboy at the restaurant, who testified that the kitchen shut down at 9:00pm on the night of June 12. Jason Simpson could have left work at any time after 9:00pm, which again should have made him a prominent suspect in the Simpson-Goldman murders, which the prosecution alleged occurred around 10:15pm.A good portion of this series addresses the evidence of the blood that suggests a match of the blood of O.J. Simpson with that found at the crime scene. Yet, the blood of O.J.'s relatives such as his son could produce equally compelling conclusions that Jason was at the crime scene, committed the murders in an act of rage, later phoned his father who visited the crime scene, and undoubtedly stepped in the blood. Within twenty-four hours and prior to his own arrest, O.J. had hired a criminal defense attorney to represent JasonOver time, high profile murder cases tend to sort themselves out. In the JonBenet Ramsey case, the most recent scenario suggests that the brother of JonBenet killed his sister with a blow to the head in a moment of rage after she swiped a piece of pineapple from his plate. In this reading of the evidence, the parents covered for the little boy, fooling the authorities for decades. A parent will often stop at nothing in order to protect a child. That may be true as well in the case of O.J. Simpson and his son Jason. Although this six-part series was uneven, especially in the final two episodes, it nonetheless works closely to the evidentiary record to challenge the viewer to come to terms with the major contradictions in the case. Only time will tell whether or not Jason Lamar Simpson has a conscience.

Brent Brent Probably the most disappointing documentary I've ever seen. Ever! This was several hours long ... each episode being 45 minutes that could have better been spent watching paint dry or counting trains go by. Seriously all relevant info. could have been fit into 60 minutes yet they stretched it out an entire season. An example of this ... they want to see if the timeline is correct that Jason Simpson could have driven from work to his girlfriends house to the crime scene at 10:30 pm on a Sunday. So they go out and make the drive on a weekday afternoon in LA when traffic is bad. They get there and one detective says to the other that he thinks traffic would be different at night. So they make the drive again!!! Ever heard of editing? They left both complete drives in.Beyond that sort of stuff which stretches the series out horribly ... including using the same video and audio clips several times throughout the series in different episodes which is a pure sign of hackery ... everything they consider evidence is mostly speculative. Each 'bombshell' piece of evidence is so out there that it would not hold up in any court. At one point they bring out Jason Simpson's journals from a storage locker and some notes one of the detectives find in his trash which have a few sentences about him being sick of 'being Jeckyl and Hyde' and they base the next two episodes around bringing in 22 year old hack psychologists to try to prove that means he's insane enough to murder.The show consists of 3 main characters. There's a crotchety old detective who believes Jason Simpson is guilty and argues everything that way. If there's a picture of Jason (a chef) holding a knife at work, this guy then wants to spend 10 minutes of the episode bringing in forensics experts to refute that it's not the murder weapon. And so on ... Then there's 'the skeptic' who is a former LAPD guy and takes the Devil's Advocate point of view and argues with the guy who believes Jason Simpson did it purely for the TV entertainment value. Finally, there is a Rhode Island cop who looks like every frat boy you ever saw out at a bar doing shots of Jager with the 'bro crew'. He's just kind of there.At one point it got so dumb I had to stop watching because I knew it was all fake garbage reality TV. One of them brings out the If I Did It book which was OJ's 'hypothetical' confession. Now this is a series which literally spends tons of time on the dumbest most minute little scrap of evidence. These are supposedly trained detectives. Yet supposedly, the RI frat boy cop never heard of the book in which OJ lays out his hypothetical version of the murders which includes an accomplice and a blackout. The RI cop's fake surprised acting when they tell him about the book is so bad ... As if anyone going into a project like this wouldn't know about that book. He sits there with a horribly badly acted shocked look and says, 'Are you kidding me?' Schlick alert ...Bottom line, I am an OJ case fanatic. Partly because growing up during that time, it all made no sense to me and I think a part of my generation is really trying to figure out what happened. I've read all the books, watched all the shows and interviews. It's not like I don't know OJ did it ... I'm more fascinated by how society let him get away with it. This documentary did nothing at all ... zero ... towards helping figure that our or at the very least entertain the audience. I would literally probably enjoy watching an episode of Keeping Up With the Kardashians than watch another minute of this poorly produced, terribly edited and boring snooze fest of bad detective work.

SentientSight The production quality of this series is very good. Unfortunately nothing else about it is.6 episodes and they finally work out what took the police back in 1994 seconds to see. Of course if they had worked out that their smoking gun evidence was total BS at the start then they wouldn't have a show.Watching this show I felt sorry for the family of all involved, including the production crew. This show must have put a few lawyer's kids through university based on the Slander it portrays as evidence. There is the occasional disclaimer but even that is spoken in a token way.If you want to see 6 hours of what many would describe as "Cyber Bullying" if done online, then watch the whole show, but all the info is presented in the last episode. If your still interested watch that first and judge if the show is worth it for you.Given enough time and effort anyone could be linked to many different crimes or events. Especially if you only show evidence that supports your theory.