OJ and Jason Simpson

‘Is O.J. Innocent? The Missing Evidence’ Points Finger At OJ’s Son Jason As Alleged Killer

In Is O.J. Innocent? The Missing Evidence, the creators try to vindicate O.J. Simpson, and instead, implicate his adult son, Jason Simpson, in the murder of his stepmother, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Private investigator William Dear has been pushing this theory for years, and he partnered with Martin Sheen (who does the narration) to throw doubt on O.J. Simpson’s guilt, and point the finger at Jason Simpson, who was in his twenties when the crime was committed.

Martin Sheen has now made it his pet project to prove O.J. Simpson innocent, although he was found responsible in civil court, says the Inquisitr. Sheen believes that in a perfect world, a grand jury would convene and indict Jason Simpson. Marcia Clark, who prosecuted O.J. Simpson in his criminal trial (he was found not guilty) is lashing out at Dear and Sheen, saying that this theory has been discredited.

William Dear, who wrote the book, O.J. is Innocent and I Can Prove It, is part of a team for the show, Is O.J. Innocent?, which floats an alternate theory of what happened the night of the murders. He is teamed up with a forensic psychologist and a police officer to put the focus on Jason Simpson, says the Hollywood Reporter.


RELATED REPORTS BY THE INQUISITR

Is There Room For Two OJ Simpson Miniseries? – The Inquisitr

Is ‘KUWTK’ Kris Jenner Trying To Make The ‘OJ Movie’ All About Her?

OJ Simpson, The Tale Of Two Knives, And Why… – The Inquisitr

‘People V. OJ Simpson’ Bowed To Political Correctness, Says Mark…


And people from the trial have also been brought in, including Ron Shipp, a former LAPD officer who testified against O.J. Simpson in his criminal trial. But one of the “clues” Dear says he has is based on allegations concerning Jason Simpson’s journals. Dear says that by using a handwriting expert and forensic psychologist, he is able to theorize that the person writing has real rage.

But Ron Shipp insists that there is no reason to keep looking at Jason as O.J. Simpson, a one-time friend of Shipp, is the guilty party.

“How much evidence of Jason do you see at the scene? How much evidence of Jason do you see at the Bronco? How much evidence of Jason do you see at Rockingham [O.J.’s home]? Zero.”

One full episode goes through Jason Simpson’s alibi the night of the murders, including a punched time card from his employer and his taped deposition from the civil trial. The voice of Martin Sheen indicates that they tried to get in touch with Jason Simpson by phone, but he did not respond (but why would he?). Dr. Mohandie, the forensic psychologist, revealed information about Jason’s life then and now.

“Seeing this really humanized Jason for me. It may just be the psychologist in me talking, but it made it very real that what we’re doing here is we’re looking at a person who’s in our world right now, just trying to get by. And yeah, he may be aloof and reclusive, but think about it: His dad is in prison [for an unrelated crime]. He lost a woman who he cared about. For me, it brought it home that we better be darn careful about where we’re going with this because this is a person who is just trying to live life.”

And this brings up whether or not Jason Simpson would have a case against Sheen and Dear as nearly an entire series is being dedicated to putting one person only in the hot seat for two murders over 22 years ago.

Bustle shared quotes from Marcia Clark, in which she seemed irked that Dear wanted to trot out the “Jason Simpson did it theory” yet again, to besmirch the reputation of someone who was never a suspect. She calls the show offensive.

“It is nonsense, because there is no real logic, there’s no evidence, there’s nothing to back it up, nothing.”

Do you think that the documentary, Is O.J. Innocent, has crossed the line in pointing the finger at Jason Simpson? Do you think a lawsuit is ahead?

[Featured Image by Associated Press]

Comments