ID Announces New OJ Simpson Docu-Series Hard Evidence: OJ Is Innocent

Over 21 years after OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder in the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, a new six-part docu-series from Investigation Discovery will offer a whole new theory of the crime. Hard Evidence: OJ Is Innocent is based on the findings of private investigator Williams Dear, who has spent the last two decades uncovering new evidence in the case, which allegedly includes a previously unknown eyewitness.

“This revealing series will now show you what may have really happened based upon all the facts, so for the first time, you will be able to judge for yourself,” Dear told Variety. “I am certain viewers will be shocked to learn who OJ may have actually been covering up for.”

It’s unclear what theory Hard Evidence will present, but actor Martin Sheen, who signed on to be the series’ executive producer and narrator after meeting Dear through his son Charlie, promises it will raise plenty of questions.

“What if there were enough evidence that proved O.J. Simpson did not murder his ex-wife Nicole or Ron Goldman?” Sheen said in a press release from Investigation Discovery. “What if the real killer were still at large? And finally, what if a grand jury convened to reconsider the case based on new evidence?”

What if, INDEED. Hard Evidence is expected to air on Investigation Discovery in early 2017.

Read more: Variety

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

  • Diane Boston


  • Kevin Bailey


  • Danielle


  • JoelWhy

    April fools! Right? I’m assuming this is a prank…

  • Ya, never mind the facts. We intend to produce imagined evidence based on our wild theories in order to confuse and divide people all the more.

  • ClaraBelle

    As if OJ would have gone down for his son. Not likely!

  • Al

    I am disappointed that this is going to be presented on this channel which has had a good reputation for the truth. Dear has tried to sell this theory once before and got nowhere with that and now is trying to push this fiction again in spite of OJ convicting himself by his own words in the civil pretrial depositions, seen on YouTube and his conduct during the civil trial itself, as related by one of the jury members who stated that she and another jury member felt OJ had taken a drug to get through his testimony there – juror #5 I believe it was – also on YouTube. there are also the hours spent explaining why oj was guilty by Vincent Bugliosi. I urge the discovery channel to stick to true facts and cases and put this show where it belongs, in the garbage can.

    • Patricia Hamilton


  • Vicky O’Dell

    I think he was being set up just by the blood samples having the preservatives in them. The socks have the same circle around the ankle on the opposite side of blood that just don’t happen when the sock was on the foot. And also the guy taking
    O.J’s blood told on the stand he received 13 cc’s and there was 2 cc’s missing.

    • Patricia Hamilton

      Oh well, now I’m convinced. Poor OJ, set up YET AGAIN by what by now seems to be a worldwide conspiracy. As if no one has anything better to do than frame the great football hero. The jury was either too stupid or too biased to follow the simplest facts about DNA testing–I’m beginning to think people should have to take I.Q. tests and score at least a little higher than, say, 75 in order to be allowed to sit on a jury. Unfortunately that wouldn’t weed out bias or DELIBERATE stupidity, but it might keep total morons off the jury.

      • Vicky O’Dell

        Great so happy this convinced you.

      • Vicky O’Dell

        Well that exempts you .

      • Vicky O’Dell

        Well that leaves you out!

  • Patricia Hamilton

    God give me patience. Who will they find to blame next, since their mantra is clearly “ANYONE but OJ did it”. Sure, never mind the evidence–TONS of it. I guess eventually we’ll be told that Nicole and Ron (God rest their souls) carried out a suicide pact–making sure to make it look like murder committed by–you guessed it–poor old OJ. That must have taken some doing!! Shame on you, ID.

    • Vicky O’Dell

      The evidence against O.J was”DNA”. Which was proved by Berry , DNA expert, he found preservatives in the blood samples which showed up in the back gate at Nicole’s . That by itself showed deception. Once deception is showed in evidence it throws all the evidence in a big question of Not Guilty. In criminal cases verdict has to be beyond a reasonable Doubt.. And there was one. A reasonable doubt.

  • John Maylone

    I’m not impressed with the “case” made here……but I’m wondering about the time card…..there was a Sunday punched in at the bottom of the time card, Sunday the 19th. If it was one week timecard, the penciled in times at the top were on the wrong card…….