Martin Sheen to produce and narrate a docuseries claiming O.J. is innocent

PSIFF Awards Gala
I guess with all the attention around true crime stories in general, and the O.J. Simpson verdict in particular, this was bound to happen. It’s surprising to me that Martin Sheen is involved though. Sheen will executive produce and narrate a series called Hard Evidence: O.J. Is Innocent. The six part series will air to air on the Investigation Discovery channel early next year. They’re going to come up with an entirely new theory for how Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered. Good luck with that.

The show will reveal critical new evidence in the slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, as well as unveil an entirely new hypothesis for what happened in Brentwood 20 years ago. While Simpson was acquitted in the so-called “Trial of the Century,” he was found liable in a civil suit two years later, and questions about his role in the slayings remain widespread.

In addition to exec producing, Sheen will narrate the series. (An existing contract with Netflix for scripted comedy Grace and Frankie prohibits him from appearing onscreen elsewhere.) Hard Evidence will largely be based on more than two decades of dogged legwork by Texas private investigator William C. Dear, whose book, O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It, presents “never-before seen evidence” and a compelling alternative theory in a case most people have long thought resolved.

Investigation Discovery landed the project following a multiple-network bidding war that counted players including Amazon over the past two months. “All of the major players were looking,” says ID Group president Henry Schleiff, who noted other bidders included premium cable. Objective Media Group America/All3Media America will produce, with Jimmy Fox, Greg Lipstone and Layla Smith set to exec produce alongside Sheen and Dear.

[From The Hollywood Reporter]

Henry Schleiff, the president of the ID network, says he believes this private investigator’s claim that O.J. is innocent. He’s been convinced by this supposed new evidence, which includes “a knife the investigator believes is the actual murder weapon, medical and forensic reports and a trove of other physical material the investigator claims LAPD never examined.” Note that this isn’t the knife that was supposedly found on O.J.’s estate during demolition and wasn’t tested as evidence until recently. That was a different knife which had no DNA on it.

The private investigator, William Dear, was introduced to Martin by his son, Charlie. That’s about all you need to know about the veracity of this guy’s claims. Dear hopes to get a grand jury to review his evidence. Plus Martin Sheen starred in a movie with O.J. in 1976, The Cassandra Crossing, so he knows him personally. Production has not started yet on this series but it will begin soon. Schleiff acknowledges that it will be expensive “To do it correctly, to go on location, to interview all the people in what is essentially a brand-new story.

Haven’t the victims’ families been through enough? They’ve had to deal with so much renewed interest in the case, and now there’s going to be a whole series claiming O.J. is innocent. O.J. pretty much outlined how he committed the murders in his book, If I Did It, the proceeds of which went to the Goldman and Brown families, who also succeeded in pulling it. How does Dear explain that book?

Kat Kramer's 'Films That Change The World'

photos credit: WENN and Getty

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

54 Responses to “Martin Sheen to produce and narrate a docuseries claiming O.J. is innocent”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. SamiHami says:

    Well, Sheen is a well known crackpot. Not surprising at all that he would involve himself in such a ridiculous project.

    • Pinky says:

      Crack and pot. The staples of Charlie”s diet. Oh, and porn. Crack, pot, and porn. And meth. Crack, pot, porn, and meth.


    • bettyrose says:

      Does Sheen realize that OJ was acquitted?!? What exactly is the point of this documentary?

      • Ramona Q. says:

        He was found guilty in the civil suit, and most everyone on the planet think he’s guilty, so there’s the point. Michael Moore has a fascinating take on why OJ might be innocent. Anyone who thinks he’s guilty should look up Michael Moore for another perspective.

      • Lindsay says:

        They want OJ’s son to be tried at least before a grand jury and to answer questions surrounding that night. Public pressure on the LAPD is the only way they will get that.

        If we are citing If I Did as evidence though OJ is the hero in that book trying to stop a second man armed with a knife. So the book doesn’t counteract Dear’s narrative. He is heavily invested in this case and probably desperate to be proven right or at least be looked at as a good private investigator and not a trash digging, exploitive crack pot.

      • bettyrose says:

        Yes, he’s guilty in the court of public opinion, but that’s hardly worth a docuseries since it’s not exactly the noble effort of freeing a wrongly imprisoned man (And there’s probably a lot of them out there who could use this kind of attention)

        So, okay, yeah, OJ *is* in prison, but not for this, so maybe create a docuseries getting his other conviction over turned if you have such a lust for OJ.

        I don’t think anyone ever thought he was innocent of the murders. The legal “dream team” was trying police corruption and evidence tampering. They successfully proved those things and their client was acquitted. His civil trial can’t be overturned. So again, there is absolutely no point to this.

      • Nancy says:

        I never even thought about it in that context bettyrose. Even though the majority of the world (at least the people in my world) believe he was guilty, he was in fact found not guilty. So in essence he is preaching to the choir. Those who thought he was not guilty won. He lost the civil case, but that was almost a given. Makes absolutely no sense. Good thinking on your part, but you always do post intelligent comments.

      • Lindsay says:

        Nancy- If most people believe OJ is guilty then an “OJ is guilty and I can prove it” documentary would be preaching to the choir. This documentary is exposing a lesser known theory of the crime.

        Betti Rose – This isn’t about nobility and definitely won’t turn OJ into a sympathetic figure. I guess if you are looking for a noble cause solving a cold case and finally getting answers for the families and seeing a murderer put in jail. I don’t think that his motives are driven by nobility. Dear has spent over million dollars of his own money investigating this. He is also a former FBI agent he wants his views on the case to become mainstream and to see Simpson’s son investigated and prosecuted, and be seen as the guy that solved LAPD most famous cold case and was right for years and should have been listened to. This is ego. Sheen’s motivation? I have no idea how and why he was sold on this.

      • vava says:

        If any documentary should be made, it’s the bogus call by the jury. O.J. was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt’. The prosecutors and the judge were all inept in not emphasizing that in their final summations (prosecutors) and instructions to the jury (the judge). DNA evidence does not lie. The guy was guilty and I hope he rots in jail for more years to come. I guess if Martin Sheen wants to waste his money, that is his prerogative.

      • bettyrose says:

        Thanks, Nancy! 🙂

        Lindsay, I am genuinely perplexed that you’re referring to this as a “cold case.” Regardless of one’s opinion on the legal proceedings and the police conduct in this matter, there is very little dispute over what happened, so the classification “cold case” is not entirely accurate here.

        I read up on what Google had to offer on theories about OJ’s son, and while he may have been suspected in a case of domestic violence in one of his relationships, I didn’t find any discussion of motive. Why in the world would OJ’s son, Nicole’s step-son, be a suspect? Moreover, one might even say that domestic violence is a learned behavior, so that puts more suspicion on OJ.

    • CArol says:

      Now I know where Charlie gets his crazy

      • CG says:

        Yeah, I never realized Martin was just as nuts as Charlie. Does that make Emilio the only sane one, or does he keep his crazy under wraps?

    • Josephine says:

      I assumed that this was an April’s Fools joke.

  2. Landy says:

    And this from the man who gave us Charlie Sheen

  3. Greenieweenie says:

    What’s next, a Bill Cosby is innocent docuseries?

  4. Jayna says:

    Does Martin have some of Charlie’s insanity? Is this where Charlie gets it from?

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      I had mistakenly thought Martin was reasonable. My bad! Bullsh!t on this series is all I have to say.

      • islandwalker says:

        You might not remember Martin Sheen trashing Denise Richards pretty horribly when she first left Charlie. He’s an asshat.

    • Caz says:

      Well. We now all know the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

  5. SusanneToo says:

    Is this the April Fools thread?

  6. Nancy says:

    Ron Goldman’s father is probably banging his head on the walls. Innocent my ass. Let these poor souls rest in peace. This is making a mockery of a double homicide that turned into gd circus. I get happy when innocent people are freed with the use of dna, etc. But, this…OJ is the victim. Sickens me.

  7. Jaded says:

    What a career-limiting move. Early onset dementia?

  8. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I started not to click on this because I knew it would make me mad, so I got what I deserved. Look, if he’s innocent and they can prove it, great. But if this just muddies the waters more and causes the families more pain, they can go to hell.

    • Lizzie McGuire says:

      I doubt “Detective” Charlie Sheen can prove that O.J. is innocent. I mean really his dad shouldn’t trust anything that his son does, or introduces him to a P.I. that has groundbreaking info.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, I totally agree that it’s bogus. I just meant that I’m willing to consider legitimate information, but if they don’t have any, which they probably don’t, they should just shut it.

  9. TEAMHARDY says:

    After the Goldman family won rights to O.J.’s book, I read it. In a day. It’s slightly over 100 pages. I found it hilarious. Because it’s ridiculous. Unfortunately, I don’t think the ridiculousness of this series will be as funny to me. ID channel, you have lost my faith forever.

  10. Lizzie McGuire says:

    Is this an April Fool’s prank by Martin? Because he seems in his right mind unlike his son, so why do this documentary based on a P.I.’s “evidence” that has never been consider evidence in trial?

  11. Will this never end?

    • vava says:

      I feel sorry for the victim’s families.

      The prosecution blew it. They didn’t emphasize the DNA evidence, O.J.’s behaviors after the murder (suicide note, long drive on the freeway, etc.), cuts on his hand, shoe print in the blood of his victims, his reaction when told Nicole had been murdered. The story is really how a murderer got off because his lawyers outwitted the prosecution. O.J. is up for parole next year on those other convictions, and I sincerely hope it is denied.

      Martin Sheen is making a bad decision with this production.

  12. willful ignorance says:

    OJ is the new WW11.

    Everyone has to have their own version.

  13. kri says:

    Oh my god. How disappointing. Even OJ knows OJ did it. And I wouldn’t use anyone as a “source” that came from Charlie’s circle.

  14. jeanpierre says:

    He better take care of his poor grandkids. What about those twin boys now? Where are they? Last time I heard about them they were being fostered for Christmas 🙁

  15. greenmonster says:

    This is the theory that O.J.’s son from his first marriage is the murderer. Someone was talking about it in the last thread.
    If you HAVE evidence that it was the son, go to the police, the DA… whoever. But trying to create a new “Making a murderer”? This is disgusting! This is not about the victims or truth, it is a money grab. Everyone involved should go to hell.

  16. Don't kill me I'm French says:

    April’s fool?

  17. noway says:

    Sorry to tell everyone there is a big audience for this. I know the majority believe OJ is guilty as sin, but there are still so many unanswered questions. If it is done well even if you don’t believe the hypothesis it could still bring some things to light, and people are obviously interested. I wasn’t going to watch the People Vs. OJ, but I watched one episode and got hooked. They have had two really good episodes lately that explained a lot to me and brought to the forefront things that were going on at the time I didn’t really know about or forgot. The Marcia Clark episode where they focused on the misogynistic tone of everything around her and the sequestered jury episode. I realize it is a drama, but if the tone or even 1/4 is true it explains the verdict a lot. You lock me up and isolate me in a hotel for 8 months and I might vote for anything too. I do feel bad for the families though.

    • FingerBinger says:

      There are unanswered questions. What happened to the murder weapon? How did OJ get rid of his bloody clothes? Why was there so little blood found?

      • Granny Apples says:

        Exactly! I am sooo glad this documentary is being made. Have you read the book by William Dear? Do.
        It *raises* questions about OJ now presumed guilt.
        Forensics show that Goldman landed several blows on his assailant. OJ was unbruised.

        Fascinating. And so sad.

        I hope justice will be done. The families deserve it.

  18. Naya says:

    Frankly, i think this isnt a bad idea. At the very least it will challenge the Ryan Murphy narrative which goes something like “OJ did it alone, law enforcement couldnt have planted evidence because money erases race in their eyes and OJ was exonerated by a racist black jury”. I may be the only one but I find Ryan Murphy despicable for pushing this “good cops under attack from black conspiracy” angle now of all times.

    That case wasnt straight forward and only a deeply prejudiced jury would have convicted given the holes. If nothing else, read up on the blood evidence in the car. How the pattern made no sense, the handprint that could not have been made by someone sitting inside unless he dislocated his wrist, the retesting that differed from the intial report and ofcourse the blood preservative. He may have done it, theres indication there were two attackers even but that collective gut feeling should not be enough to convict especially when it is clear that law enforcement is padding their case. The Goldman family should understand that by now. Anyway, a counter story will be good.

    • noway says:

      Funny you say that, because I thought the People vs. OJ although leaning towards him being guilty doesn’t really present it as strong as you think it does. I like the story about the lawyers, jury and the peripherals, it is more about the time it was done and what made this blow up in the media, at least to me. Different people see things differently though. I agree with you though on this new series. I hope it is done well, and it should be interesting.

    • WTF says:

      I don’t know if OJ is guilty or not. I don’t know if Steven Avery or Adnan Syed are guilty or not either. What I know is that misconduct by the police and the prosecutors means that we can never know. We have the presumption of innocence in this country. Prosecutors and police have to prove their case without lying or cheating or tipping the scale. That’s how innocent people end up in prison. I never understood why the Brown and Goldman families weren’t furious with the police and DA.

      • noway says:

        Here’s the thing when law schools around the country use the prosecutors mistakes for decade on what not to do in court you messed up royally. Yes, Johnnie Cochran and his bunch were good lawyers, but the DA and police department had all the evidence and info first, and they botched it up. If I was the victims family, I would be upset with them the most.

    • K says:

      I don’t know if OJ did it but the DNA really makes me think he did.

      That being said…THE VERDICT WAS 100% the right one, because there was REASONABLE DOUBT. When a police officer was asked on the stand if he planted evidence he PLEAD THE FIFTH! Another cop took evidence home for 24 hours, they entered his property without a warrant and questioned him without a lawyer. The LAPD messed up and there was reasonable doubt and the jury have the right verdict.

      And yes this show will do amazing in the ratings and I’m going to say it I don’t feel a bit bad for the Browns because I believe to this day the only reason they care she died is because the gravy train stopped! If it was this horrible sad situation they hated liked they try to claim now and during trial they wouldn’t have NOT helped her when it was happening. They loved what her being with OJ got them. Sorry not sorry.

      Regarding the show- I think it’s trying to explain the people involved more- and sort of how we all felt. I mean I think it is really explaining how race was such and element and why, but also the sexism that existed and how it colored it all. OJ almost feels like a non factor.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      If he didn’t do it, it would have taken something like 500 LAPD officers to be in on it and arrange the framing. The timeline between the crime and the police officers arriving at the crime scene and seeing OJ at his home is so tight that it would have taken an army to plant all of that evidence so quickly.

      • K says:

        That doesn’t matter what matters in a case is reasonable doubt and it was shown. The prosecution never made the claim of a conspiracy of 500 officers they never showed that what was shown was evidence miss handled, an officer lying and envokong the 5th when asked about planting evidence in the case and a glove that didn’t fit (which yes there where a million reasons it didn’t but they weren’t explained and it was the prosecutions idea).

        That is all reasonable doubt- the fact is the state didn’t meet its burden of proof.

  19. Nikki says:


  20. MollyO says:

    April Fools, am I right?

  21. AnotherDirtyMartini says:

    Oh lord..I didn’t know daddy was just as crazy as son, Charlie.

  22. Mario George Nitrini 111 says:

    I really want to see actor Martin Sheen and private investigator William C. Dear explain Rocky Bateman. Sheen and Dear’s scenario is totally BOGUS. My name is Mario Nitrini and I am going to make a legal shambles and legally debunk this OJ Simpson Case scenario that Martin Sheen and William C. Dear claim. I have the audio tapes and paperwork to do it.

    Rocky Bateman, my ex-in-law, was OJ Simpson’s regular limousine driver from approximately August of 1993 to June of 1994.

    Mario George Nitrini 111
    The OJ Simpson Case and Saga

  23. Jza says:

    My wife’s uncle played professional football with O.J. back in the day. There was apparently some locker room talk about O.J.’s son having an affair with Nicole. Wifey’s uncle always thought it was the stepson was the murderer and that O.J. took the rap for his kid. It could have happened – after all, the DNA from the son would have still “matched” O.J. Things that make you go hmmm…..