I’ve read many O.J. Simpson books, but this one is probably the most important. The book “O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It” by William C. Dear is a must-read on several levels. The most obvious level, of course, is that it quite compellingly presents an argument for O.J.’s innocence in the killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. (However, it posits O.J. helped the true killer cover up the crime and took the blame, so to speak, for the true killer.) The book presents a suspect whom the police never interviewed BUT a suspect for whom O.J. got a defense attorney for the day after the murders for no apparent reason. O.J. also has a history of cleaning up after this suspect’s violent acts. This suspect was never interviewed, police didn’t bother to look into him, so why the defense attorney?
Who is this suspect? Jason Simpson, O.J.’s son (who was 24 at the time of the killings). Now, let me say something here. My purpose in this review is not to persuade you O.J. is innocent or that Jason is guilty. I’m not going to get into debates about that UNTIL you’ve read this book. Then we’ll talk.
My mind remains open as to who killed Nicole and Ron, but Jason is someone the police should have interviewed for sure. He has blackouts, has assaulted multiple girlfriends, describes himself as a Jekyll and Hyde, was snubbed by Nicole on the day of the murders, had a handwritten time card on the night of the killings (the only handwritten time card among computerized punch-outs) and no alibi. In interviews (not police interviews, of course), Jason Simpson’s story keeps changing. The book gives a long, detailed list as to why O.J. is innocent and why Jason should be considered a major suspect.
Why this book is a must-read on other levels: it shows the danger of police tunnel vision. The police decided O.J. was guilty without even investigating him and any other suspects.
It also shows how badly police botched the crime scene with its carelessness. However, there are a few blood samples, skin samples, a shoe print and fingerprints that remain unidentified. The police say the case remains open, then in the next breath, say it’s closed. Which is it? It seems to be whichever is most convenient at the moment for the cops. When it’s a request to get Jason Simpson’s DNA and fingerprints for comparison, the cops say the case is closed, OJ was tried but found not guilty (whatever sense that makes). When it’s media speech, the police say the case is open.
The police still refuse to interview Jason Simpson despite many experts, including Henry Lee, saying he is at the very least a plausible suspect.
I could write on and on and on about this book, but I urge you to just read it. Please. I’ve read books on both sides of the O.J. argument, and I’ve always felt something was a bit fishy, a bit off. This book could very well explain the answer.