Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Then and Now

It was an ordinary summer evening in 1994. I’d just gotten home from a local pizza place with my sister, looking forward to eating some garlic cheese rolls and loafing in front of the TV.

We walked in and our stepfather had the set tuned to a news station — an aerial shot of a white Ford Bronco being slowly pursued by a dozen cop cars on an L.A. freeway.

In the Bronco was football legend O.J. Simpson, fleeing from justice after killing his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her boyfriend Ron Goldman, five days earlier.

I watched but I wasn’t that interested. Guys who murder people flee from the cops, that’s nothing new. At eighteen years of age, I was much more concerned with the garlic rolls on my plate and the sweet deal I’d just scored on a new pair of Adidas sneakers from an outlet mall a few days earlier.

O.J. was arrested, and that was that.

As the summer progressed — and because my step-father was a couch potato — I heard all of the evidence in snippets as I went about my business. It was hard to ignore the Trial of the Century, as it was called, and the case seemed pretty clear cut.

The sheer volume of physical evidence was overwhelming. Blood evidence was discovered everywhere, even inside O.J’s vehicle. The DNA evidence was conclusive, a bloody glove was located, a cut on O.J.’s hand was consistent with a knife wound, shoe prints matched the size and style of O.J.’s shoes, a decade’s worth of domestic violence was on record. On and on, the evidence mounted.

The case against O.J. Simpson included arguably the most comprehensive and complete body of incontrovertible physical and circumstantial evidence in American history. They even had previous 911 calls from Nicole predicting her fate. Thousands of killers had been convicted on a fraction of what they had against O.J. Simpson.

He did it. Everyone knew he did it.

But that didn’t matter. O.J. was exonerated, and even as millions of Americans’ jaws hit the floor, millions more cheered his victory.

Huh? What are they celebrating? Didn’t they see all of the same evidence I saw?

Yes, they did. The jury saw all of the evidence too…and willfully disregarded it.

They saw it as irrelevant — or were instructed to deem it fake — and it was discarded. Why? Because they wanted him to be innocent, so they turned a blind eye to the tidal wave of evidence that proved him guilty.

Does any of this sound familiar?

2020 All Over Again

In the spring of 2020 we had evidence all over the place demolishing mainstream narratives on a host of topics. From supposedly racist cops asphyxiating supposedly harmless men, to global “pandemics” preying on grandma because we refused to asphyxiate our kids with pointless masks. The evidence didn’t matter that year.

We also had evidence of a stolen election with enough smoking guns to convince a majority of Americans, with more seeing the light and waking up every day.

At the end of 2020 we had over 1,145 pieces of evidence that the 2020 election had massive voter fraud. We have multiple terabytes today.

Back then we had 8000 pages of eyewitness affidavits from people who saw the fraud with their own eyes in a single state, along with thousands of others — truck drivers, postal workers, IT technicians, state and local government officials, technological warfare specialists, forensic accountants, coders, etcetera — all of them offering their unique expertise in sober analysis on the mountainous evidence of fraud.

We’ve compiled numerous websites cataloging fraud mechanisms in every state.

We have documentaries explaining how the election machines are designed to steal elections, and thousands of video demonstrations on how they did it across Telegram, Rumble, X, and on independent websites like mine and others.

We have mail-in ballot fraud being contested, and lawsuits exposing the graft afforded to corrupt judges and courts who perpetuate the system of institutional slavery, where your vote is less secure than your favorite streaming services’ watch-later list.

We’ve seen brave officials imprisoned for making sure election information wasn’t wiped out of existence, and corrupt officials threatening anyone who would dare to stand up to them again.

Fraudulent elections are just one of the many things we have ample evidence that a true jury would ever need to indict thousands of bad actors across our nation.

In the past four years we’ve seen an elite pedophile madame convicted but zero interest in charging her clients, or even naming them.

We’ve seen U.S. government involvement of child sex trafficking, with insiders, FBI agents, and border agents blowing whistles all over the place.

We’ve had disasters in Maui, Ohio, and on the East Coast where inept or nefarious officials escaped culpability for the deaths of thousands.

Alternative media has documented over 300 crimes perpetrated by the Biden crime family, evidence of American culpability in destroying the Nordstream pipeline, illegal campaign contributions filtered through Act Blue, and a dozen other scandals that don’t seem to matter to anyone in a position to do something about them.

All we lack are leaders willing to investigate them, and impartial juries afforded the chance to render verdicts based on those investigations.

Yet still, millions of Americans are willing to disregard it all.

Blind Eyes See No Crimes

Back in 1994 the evidence against O.J. Simpson was equally overwhelming. It demanded a verdict. But millions of Americans didn’t care.

I don’t claim to understand any of the rationale that led the O.J. Simpson jurors to acquit him, but I do know this: It wasn’t based on an honest evaluation of the evidence. They simply ignored that, and at least one juror, Carrie Bess, went on record saying that around 90% of them acquitted him as payback for the Rodney King beating two years earlier.

Crimes were excused because a few people placed a higher priority on their desires than their integrity.

In 2020 my oldest daughter was studying forensic science. She spent the first few months of the semester learning the basics of blood evidence, forensic anthropology, criminal investigation, DNA, toxicology, entomology, among other disciplines. Soon she had a good grasp on how a single piece of evidence can lead to a conviction. Then she got to the O.J. Simpson case.

As she was about to watch a video about it, I warned her. “It’s going to tick you off.”

“Why?” she asked.

“You’ll see.”

Later on I asked her, “So, what did you learn?”

She gave me a blank stare and shook her head. “How could they just choose to ignore all of that evidence?”

I didn’t know how they could ignore it then. I still don’t know how they can ignore it now. We’re now two weeks out from another election, and I can only guess how everyone will react should they choose to lie, and cheat, and cover it all up again, even with a mountain of evidence staring us in the face. It used to be that evidence demanded a verdict. It still does.

---

You can follow me on Telegram, Substack, Frank Social, Truth Social, GETTR, Gab, and X.

If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting us with a paid subscription in the amount of your choice. Or if you’d like to make a one time donation feel free to Buy Me A Coffee.

You can subscribe to receive new posts to your inbox for free, as well as get information on my upcoming books and projects.

---

If you enjoyed this article, you might check out these as well: