HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » What if O.J. didn’t do it...

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:14 PM

 

What if O.J. didn’t do it? Film suggests serial killer—not Simpson—murdered Brown, Goldman

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by muriel_volestrangler (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Yahoo News

Is O.J. Simpson innocent of murder after all? An explosive new documentary suggests that he is.

In the film "My Brother the Serial Killer," set to air Wednesday on the Investigation Discovery network, Clay Rogers, the brother of convicted serial killer Glen Rogers, claims Glen murdered Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman—the pair Simpson was accused—and controversially acquitted—of slaying in 1995.

Glen Rogers was arrested in November 1995—a month after Simpson was found not guilty—in Kentucky "after leading police on a high-speed chase in a car that belonged to a Florida woman believed to be the third victim in a vicious, cross-country killing spree that began in Van Nuys," Calif., seven weeks before. He was convicted and sentenced to death in both California and Florida and is currently sitting on death row in the Sunshine State, awaiting execution.

According to Clay Rogers, Glen bragged to him about killing more than 70 people. (Glen later said the claim was a joke.) And Clay says Glen told him he had been "partying" with Brown Simpson prior to her June 12, 1994, killing.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/oj-innocent-glen-rogers-murder-nicole-194119077.html



I always thought the case against OJ was deeply flawed. I remember everyone--at least all the white people I talked to--thought OJ was guilty.

I couldn't see fighting a healthy, much younger person for 15 or 20 minutes (IIRC)--a person fighting for his life--and not having a mark on you except for a cut on a finger. OJ took pictures in his BVDs and was unmarked.

I was also very suspicious about the "now you see it, now you don't" sock--a sock that had blood on both sides, as if the blood went through OJ's ankle as he wore it. And the detective carrying his blood all over town.

I never denied that OJ was involved; I said I wouldn't be shocked if he hired it done, but I couldn't have voted to convict given the prosecution's case.

176 replies, 29015 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 176 replies Author Time Post
Reply What if O.J. didn’t do it? Film suggests serial killer—not Simpson—murdered Brown, Goldman (Original post)
TPaine7 Nov 2012 OP
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #1
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #28
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #46
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #51
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #65
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #78
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #83
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #95
Archae Nov 2012 #96
cali Nov 2012 #156
william cail Nov 2012 #168
bluemarkers Nov 2012 #68
CuriousAboutPolls Nov 2012 #121
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #130
YOHABLO Nov 2012 #147
dflprincess Nov 2012 #57
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #72
dflprincess Nov 2012 #81
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #100
dflprincess Nov 2012 #112
stopbush Nov 2012 #155
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #172
graham4anything Nov 2012 #2
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #8
graham4anything Nov 2012 #24
DRoseDARs Nov 2012 #42
Zoeisright Nov 2012 #122
awoke_in_2003 Nov 2012 #135
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #141
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #142
graham4anything Nov 2012 #150
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #171
RBInMaine Nov 2012 #163
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #3
Skittles Nov 2012 #4
Blasphemer Nov 2012 #87
Skittles Nov 2012 #146
chimpymustgo Nov 2012 #157
Skittles Nov 2012 #158
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #174
Nightjock Nov 2012 #175
lbrtbell Nov 2012 #167
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #5
MADem Nov 2012 #15
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #20
MADem Nov 2012 #37
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #43
bluemarkers Nov 2012 #59
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #61
MADem Nov 2012 #124
AlbertCat Nov 2012 #70
Zoeisright Nov 2012 #123
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #6
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #31
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #53
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #91
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #92
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #97
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #104
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #119
DeltaLitProf Nov 2012 #132
AlbertCat Nov 2012 #69
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #94
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #111
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #126
NavyMom Nov 2012 #143
chuckstevens Nov 2012 #7
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #10
madinmaryland Nov 2012 #14
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #36
amandabeech Nov 2012 #66
AlbertCat Nov 2012 #76
amandabeech Nov 2012 #86
AlbertCat Nov 2012 #118
LovingA2andMI Nov 2012 #149
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #101
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #18
Cha Nov 2012 #52
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #64
Cha Nov 2012 #71
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #84
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #93
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #88
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #115
Zoeisright Nov 2012 #125
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #128
PufPuf23 Nov 2012 #22
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #58
RBInMaine Nov 2012 #165
jberryhill Nov 2012 #9
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #35
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #39
yardwork Nov 2012 #54
yardwork Nov 2012 #56
jberryhill Nov 2012 #79
MADem Nov 2012 #11
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #16
MADem Nov 2012 #40
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #102
MADem Nov 2012 #109
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #55
AlbertCat Nov 2012 #82
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #85
AlbertCat Nov 2012 #117
atre Nov 2012 #139
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #148
atre Nov 2012 #153
plethoro Nov 2012 #12
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #103
plethoro Nov 2012 #138
AKing Nov 2012 #13
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #19
AKing Nov 2012 #41
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #137
JackRiddler Nov 2012 #17
BeyondGeography Nov 2012 #21
grantcart Nov 2012 #23
atre Nov 2012 #25
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #44
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #80
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #108
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #113
SkyDaddy7 Nov 2012 #48
grantcart Nov 2012 #49
Tumbulu Nov 2012 #131
FlaGranny Nov 2012 #169
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #60
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #73
atre Nov 2012 #134
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #144
graham4anything Nov 2012 #26
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #29
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #50
Zoeisright Nov 2012 #127
RBInMaine Nov 2012 #162
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #27
RBInMaine Nov 2012 #164
MicaelS Nov 2012 #30
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #32
David__77 Nov 2012 #33
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #62
MrSlayer Nov 2012 #34
elbloggoZY27 Nov 2012 #38
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #47
SoapBox Nov 2012 #45
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #99
bluestateguy Nov 2012 #63
DRoseDARs Nov 2012 #74
jberryhill Nov 2012 #90
SleeplessinSoCal Nov 2012 #67
DRoseDARs Nov 2012 #77
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #89
Union Scribe Nov 2012 #106
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #114
Union Scribe Nov 2012 #116
mitchtv Nov 2012 #75
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #98
brewens Nov 2012 #105
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #107
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #110
Zoeisright Nov 2012 #120
olddad56 Nov 2012 #129
awoke_in_2003 Nov 2012 #133
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #136
atre Nov 2012 #140
TPaine7 Nov 2012 #145
atre Nov 2012 #154
graham4anything Nov 2012 #151
madokie Nov 2012 #152
UCmeNdc Nov 2012 #159
Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #160
RBInMaine Nov 2012 #161
lbrtbell Nov 2012 #166
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #170
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #173
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #176

Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:17 PM

1. Uh huh

There are also docs that claim LBJ had JFK assassinated. And they are run on "legitimate" networks.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:41 PM

28. The History channel ran that documentary. I couldn't believe it!






Of course this was right when the History channel began making its transition from talking about history to becoming the UFO, Art Bell conspiracy network it is today.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:57 PM

46. Why? If you knew more of the facts you might think differently.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:59 PM

51. Do you think LBJ had JFK assassinated? nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #51)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:08 PM

65. referring to the slam of History channel only

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #65)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:20 PM

78. Most of the shows History now runs engage in speculation and theory

Not facts. There is a difference.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #78)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:24 PM

83. Isn't it still history that people are speculating and have alternate theories

on what others say is fact? No?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #83)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:34 PM

95. Speculating and theorizing on events that aren't even in evidence....

....is a problem for a show calling itself The History Channel.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #83)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:34 PM

96. There is speculation...

And then there is off the deep end nuttiness.

Those UFO programs are the latter. Not the former.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #83)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:48 AM

156. No. That is not considered history. Not by any reputable historian in the world.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #78)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:58 AM

168. What??

You mean those acient aliens docs aren't real? Shock Ill tell ya. Now I did see a rare Nazi doc about making a big budget Titanic film. I was quite surprise that there was no aliens or the occult.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:11 PM

68. is this the knives guy?

I vaguely remember some forensics expert touting his theory of innocent with a down and out chef who used his knives to slaughter Simpson and Goldman.

At this point anyone can take an old case like this and twist facts to fit their agenda.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:46 AM

121. My favorites....

are the specials on "what kind of sandals did Jesus wear" and other such tripe. If you want to look at the historical validity of Biblical tales(including the miracles that many assumed MUST have happened because Jesus was real....then great. But, please, provide something remotely educational if you are going to call yourself The History Channel. And I am not just talking about 5 shows a day on the history of the United States during World War 2.

Of course, I realize....better to turn it off and read a book.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:56 AM

130. Nothing the History Channel does surprises me

Except for the rare occasion htey run something legitimately historical... that doesn't revolve around the wehrmacht.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:41 AM

147. Yeah, What's With The History Channel .. They Have An Agenda ..

You know these shows like.. days without people. UFOs .. conspiracy this and that .. and they have a Hitler fest every month. Lots and lots of Bible crap .. is this all to please their viewers? Just very strange propaganda.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:04 PM

57. Was that part of the BBC series

"The Men Who Killed Kennedy"?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #57)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:15 PM

72. I think it was

Mind you, they had numerous installments, claiming everyone from the CIA, to Castro to the Mob did it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #72)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:24 PM

81. I remember it was interesting

and at least the BBC was willing to look at other possibilities unlike the American media which has always been content to never question the official story.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #81)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:38 PM

100. Their wild possibilities seemed endless

....and diminish the credibility of finding the truth.

Although, at least they didn't claim aliens did it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #100)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:14 AM

112. I don't recall that all the speculation was that wild

and I thought they looked at some of the theories and dismissed them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #112)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:55 AM

155. Really? How about their speculation about the Corsican hit team?

The first two episodes, as originally broadcast, named a three-man Corsican hit team from Marseilles, France as having been responsible for firing all the shots in Dealey Plaza, and named names. Although one of the named assassins, Lucien Sarti, was conveniently dead, the other two (Sauveur Pironti and Roger Bocognani) were both alive and both had airtight alibis (one of the men was in jail at the time of the JFK shooting). “The only thing I know of Dallas is the soap opera I have watched on TV,” Pironti said. His lawyers threatened a “multi-million pound” lawsuit, and Central Television was subjected to public criticism bordering on ridicule. On its own initiative, Central sent its own reporters to France after the program aired, and they promptly notified the company that the allegations were bogus and “total nonsense.”

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #100)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:28 AM

172. Occam's Razor >>>>>>>>> Endless Possibilities/nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:18 PM

2. From what I saw, the verdict was 100% correct. NOT GUILTY aka INNOCENT

 

I too would have ruled not guilty.

and no other person in the entire country would have received the sentence OJ did in Vegas.
Totally unconstitutional to try a man twice

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:22 PM

8. Not Guilty is not the same as innocent

But considering you think no one should be arrested for murder, your opinion is somewhat irrelevant.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:37 PM

24. It was in this case.And I am Juror #8. Just like I would vote guilty for Zimmerman 1st degree.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:52 PM

42. Yes, it is unconstitutional for the gov't to try a person twice. And he wasn't.

Criminal trials are brought by the state against the accused, civil trials are between private entities (be they people or businesses/non-governmental organizations) accusing one another or by said private entities accusing the state.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:46 AM

122. Uh, the trials were for different crimes.

Try to keep up.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:30 AM

135. He was not tied twice...

for the same crime. He was tried for kidnapping people in the second trial.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:52 AM

141. Sorry. There is nothing whatsoever unconstitutional in

filing a civil suit against a person who also is criminally tried for a crime. You cannot be criminally tried again if you were found not guilty in criminal court - that would be double jeopardy.

Nothing prohibits you from then being sued in the same matter. Civil courts and civil law (torts) are COMPLETELY separate in the US.

Please review basic high school civics.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:57 AM

142. So, if somebody is charged with Crime A and is found not guilty,

he can never again be charged, tried, and convicted of Crime B some random time in the future??

The Vegas trial had nothing to do with the murders in Brentwood. And the civil trial had nothing to do with the criminal trial. One was for a crime and the other was for a tort. And the Vegas trial was for another crime altogether.

What are you? Eight years old??

When you get to high school they will cover this in basic civics. A not guilty verdict is not a lifetime get out of jail free pass.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #142)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:26 AM

150. His Lynchings still occur in racist America, he will get a new trial someday

 

If he wasn't OJ, he would have gotten parole, or 3 to 5. Not 9 to life for a nothing crime

He was set up by corrupt lawyer, which is why he will get a new trial

But then lynchings of blacks still occur in racist America.

Of course, he should have waited til the item was in NY or Calif or FLorida and he could have scored it back. But it was HIS stuff.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #150)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:26 AM

171. Racism. Homophobia, Anti-Semitism Are Still Rife In Our World

Does that mean members of those groups get a "get out of jail" card free for any heinous act they which to perpetrate on innocent victims who have nothing to do with their oppression?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:48 AM

163. MOUNTAINS of evidence PROVES he did it. He was found "guilty" in the civil trial. The acquittal in

the criminal case was due to a weak prosecution presentation, NOT an objective lack of evidence. TONS of evidence PROVES it was Simpson. You can live in denial all you want.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:18 PM

3. I too listened to the entire trial and agree. The jury had to acquit based on the evidence presented

HOWEVER, I also agree that OJ may have had some complicity. Where, how and to what degree I don't know. But the jury made the right call based on the trial they saw.

Regardless, the guy's a scumbag. Justice delayed but he got his in the end.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:19 PM

4. IF I DID IT

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:28 PM

87. O.J.'s guilt is one thing I've never doubted

I am a JFK assassination conspiracy theorist but I can be swayed. When it comes to O.J. Simpson, there has never been any doubt in my mind that he is guilty and no doubt that Robert Kardashian helped him hide evidence. Setting aside the evidence in the case, that look on Robert Kardashian's face when the jury read their verdict is NOT the look of a man who is relieved that an innocent friend is not going to jail. That was a look of shock and guilt. Then there is that "If I did it" book - as far as I'm concerned that made it "case closed."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blasphemer (Reply #87)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:29 AM

146. I agree with you on the look on Mr. Kardashian's face

it was a mixture of surprise, fear, regret and shame - certainly it haunted him the rest of his days, which were not to be many

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #146)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:49 AM

157. Skittles, I love your posts, I love your outlook, but I watched that entire trial. No way could you

convict O.J. - and certainly not based on the "look" on someone's face.

Those cops were so dirty - they planted evidence - the bloody sock? The "drops" of blood leading to the house - that stop at the stairs? They were dirty - stupid - cops. Carrying evidence around town in a coat pocket?

That trial told me a lot about America - and the media. It was astonishing to watch the testimony every day - then see the lies and bullshit that were reported on the evening news. Then the mightly cable shows would take it to the next level of whirling crap. And people like Victoria Toensing would come on - CLEARLY NOT HAVING WATCHED AN IOTA of the testimony - but spewing and spinning talking points.

EVEN if O.J. did it - and I honestly don't think he did - the only thing Marcia Clark proved in that courtroom was that the cops planted a shitload of evidence to make it look as though O.J. did it.

I always suspected that perhaps his son, Jason did it. But that's just speculation. NO CASE came close to being proved against O.J. And anybody who watched that trial, knows this.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chimpymustgo (Reply #157)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:08 AM

158. sorry, not even worth my time

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chimpymustgo (Reply #157)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:33 AM

174. Why Would The Cops Frame OJ? They Loved Him

There was a testimony from officers who used to play cards with him and some of members of the LAPD were close friends.

And before you think I am blind to racism as a motive please read my 45,000 + posts here. I am more than aware of it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chimpymustgo (Reply #157)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:35 AM

175. I completely agree with you

I watched every second of that trial and you echo my thoughts

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blasphemer (Reply #87)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:12 AM

167. I wouldn't doubt that OJ hired a killer

But there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he, himself, did the actual killing. He would have sustained a lot more bruises from two people fighting for their lives. There was a lot more evidence that didn't quite add up, too.

I always figured OJ was involved somehow, but innocent of the actual killing. If his wife had not been a white woman, I think a lot more people would have been willing to consider that alternative, too.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:19 PM

5. This'll be good...



O.J. was pretty clearly a total bastard to Nicole...he almost certainly beat her(based on the 911 call that the LAPD totally failed to deal with...but this is what always made me wonder if he actually killed her...

Forty-five minutes after the killings occurred...OJ was on a plane to Chicago joking with the other passengers and acting perfectly calm-he was totally "the Juice", completely nonchalant.

If you saw any of the guy's movies, you know OJ can't act his way out of a box...so how could he have essentially fileted two human beings and then put on a believable performance less than an hour later as a celebrity who was just chilling with his fans?

Never got a good answer from anybody on that point.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:29 PM

15. Can't act? He was SUPERB as Nordberg in the Naked Gun series. Superb.

He had excellent comedic timing and good screen presence.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #15)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:32 PM

20. Did you post that with a straight face?

n/t.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:48 PM

37. Yes, I did. He had great comedic timing, made all the more enjoyable because it was so unexpected.

He also had wonderful screen presence in screwball comedies--he was a natural for that "action-comedy" genre. Ahhhnuld has that quality too, even though he's a reprehensible human being on other levels.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #37)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:53 PM

43. Comedic chops are one thing...acting convincingly as if you HADN'T just carved up two humans

within an hour of having done just that is a far different matter...I just can't see OJ pulling off something that complex and psychological. It'd be a stretch for Denzel Washington.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #43)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:04 PM

59. he's a sociopath, just like rmoney

or a psychopath, just like rmoney

cold blooded killers act (think, are) different from the norm Think any any of the Petersons, MacDonald, BTK etc

They have such a mental break that they think it's someone else

So agreed the guy can't act, he didn't need to

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluemarkers (Reply #59)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:06 PM

61. You may have something there.

n/t.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #43)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:48 AM

124. Some of the best actors don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

They're self-absorbed, selfish, and uncaring when it comes to the needs of others. They can pretend otherwise, though--that's why they're good at their jobs.

Who didn't buy the cheery "Hertz airport running" baby-faced, smiling, old-lady-helping and adorable guy that OJ portrayed in the commercials?

But he wasn't like that at all--he was an asshole in his personal life, a dark, bitter, mean and nasty individual, but he acted quite the part of a sweet and wholesome fellow on the public stage.

And people bought the package, too. Hook, line...and stinker!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #15)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:13 PM

70. He was SUPERB as Nordberg in the Naked Gun series.

He is. I agree. I love those movies....partly because of OJ...he now makes them even MORE surreal!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:47 AM

123. Psychopaths are completely capable of acting as you describe.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:20 PM

6. Whether OJ did it or not, the prosecutors certainly did not manage

to prove he did it. There were problems with the timeline.

We'll never know for sure.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:42 PM

31. What were the problems with the timeline?

Even the defense admitted the murders occurred between 10:15 and 10:40. Simpson was last seen at 9:36 and not again till 10:54.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:01 PM

53. Read the book "OJ is innocent and I can prove it" by William Dear

http://www.amazon.com/J-Innocent-Can-Prove/dp/1616086203

Most people take things on surface and automatically say "No way in hell is he innocent"

Dear is a private investigator who spent, like a decade, delving into the details.

He took it much further and I challenge anyone to read this and still think he did it.

Spoiler Alert: He was definitely there at the murder site, but not the murderer.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #53)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:30 PM

91. So you want me to read a one sided book from someone who is profiting from this?

Does it explain why Simpson lied about owning a pair of size 12 Bruno Magli shoes that he was photographed several times wearing? Only 299 were sold in the US during the time Simpson would have bought them.

Does it explain why Nicole and Ron Goldman's blood was found on a sock in Simpson's bedroom?

Does it explain why Nicole and Ron Goldman's blood was found inside the bronco?

Does it explain why OJ wasn't home at the time of the murders?

Does it explain why Simpson's blood was at the murder scene and several cuts were found on his hands?

Does it explain why Simpson beat Nicole on several occassions and her telling numerous people that OJ was going to kill her?

Does it explain why Simpson's driver loaded 5 bags into the car, yet he only had 3 with him on his flight?

Does it explain why OJ's hair was found on Ron Goldman's shirt?

Does it explain why OJ made a call at 10:03 from his bronco's cell phone when he said he was chipping golf balls in his back yard?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #91)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:31 PM

92. Actually yes to all, I think. He was there, at the murder site, but he didn't do it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #92)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:34 PM

97. Convienient

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #97)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:43 PM

104. duh

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #104)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:44 AM

119. And you paid money for this book?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #91)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:22 AM

132. I just wish I could vote this up like you can vote up responses on reddit!

This is absolutely superb.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:11 PM

69. Time line Schmime line

There is so much tiny forensic stuff that points to OJ.

You should read "Murder in Brentwood." Sure it's Fuhrman's book.... and he's a little defensive, but then he became the one on trial. Pics of the murder scene...blood EVERYWHERE. The blood in the Bronco was like...drops of OJ's blood on the door. Nicole's AND Ron's blood MIXED on the floor...OJ walked thru it. And of course much much more.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #69)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:34 PM

94. It's not as if there isn't a wealth of information on this already

I've yet to hear anyone who thinks Simpson didn't do it explain why a very rare size 12 Bruno Magli shoe prints in blood were found at the murder scene, which were the very shoes Simpson was photographed wearing yet claimed he never owned. So even if you can discount all the other circumstantial evidence which points directly at OJ (which alone is a pretty good trick), the shoes pretty much seals the deal.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #94)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:13 AM

111. Those were only presented in the civil case, not the criminal case. Apples and oranges

although I agree, OJ is most certainly guilty. Unfortunately, the criminal case was badly done by the prosecution. There was no other verdict the jury could have reached in the criminal case.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #111)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:50 AM

126. Then we agree

I have no question of his guilt and am only addressing those who claim he's innocent. It's a simple fact he was acquitted for whatever reason which can be debated ad nauseum. The question of his guilt is pretty simple.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #94)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:02 AM

143. Unfortunately size 13 are not uncommon

my 16 yo wears size 13. There are numerous peace officers in my family, city state, federal but I listened to my uncle who is a MD, ME, pathologist, a forensic pathologist and a criminologist and when they were "investigating" he said there was NO WAY Nicole lost all that blood and police would find "smears" or "drops" especially in the Bronco. He says if OJ went from the crime scene to his vehicle the police would see and find blood in his seats, the carpet, door handles, steering column.

My cousin was undercover NARC that was outed and all the blood from his injuries was also ALL OVER THE PLACE, he was essentially tortured and FOUGHT for his life so looking at those pictures there is no way OJ did this crime. Was he there? Maybe, did he participate? No. Take a look at the pictures at the scene, there was blood EVERYWHERE then the police went after OJ they discounted his daughter saying her mother friend was there, they made the evidence fit him not follow the evidence. It was my misfortune to witness my best friend murder by her husband and let me tell you, there was no smear and he was covered just covered in her blood and so was his car when he left her there to die. So the prosecutor did not do their job, they never attempted to do their job...there question should've been where is all the blood transferred? Why just a smear on a gate or his vehicle? They should've known something was not right but they judged him guilty as soon as they knew who the victim was, they never actively looked at Faye Resnick that went into hiding and LIED to them several times.

OJ was guilty of abusing Nicole, but not of killing her.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:20 PM

7. ZERO DOUBT

I have ZERO doubt that OJ did. Would an innocent man be suicidal and lead police on the Bronco chase?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chuckstevens (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:25 PM

10. Many innocent men have fled.

 

Many innocent men have confessed to crimes they haven't committed (often under duress). Many men have presumed, and many of them correctly, that they wouldn't get a fair trial. Many men would rather die than face prison.

I don't see how fleeing and being suicidal could lead to zero doubt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chuckstevens (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:28 PM

14. A black man accused of murdering a WHITE woman and a WHITE man would most likely

be suicidal.

Zero Doubt??


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madinmaryland (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:47 PM

36. A famous black man who was quite wealthy who could (and did) buy the best defense available

I'm not quite as sure as you that race played much of a factor here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:08 PM

66. OJ's defense team was the criminal defense all-stars.

The late Johnny Cochran was absolutely the best in the business, and the prosecution simply was not of the same caliber.

I think that those two factors helped level the playing field for OJ, together with his acting person and general fame.

An average black guy with a public defender, even a good one, would have more problems, IMHO, than an average white guy with a public defender.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #66)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:18 PM

76. OJ's defense team was the criminal defense all-stars.

They turned it all into a trial about Fuhrman.... a cop who OH MY GOD! used the "N" word. C'mon!

That alone sheds huge doubts on the verdict.... deliberately misdirecting the emphasis.

And who says you have to buy gloves to fit to murder someone (And they probably did fit, sinc wet leather shrinks. Hell... leather shrinks anyway. Ever heard of glove stretchers? My grandmother has several of them)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #76)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:27 PM

86. Turning a trial around someone other than the defendant is about the best

defense strategy around.

Cochran and friends did their job, and did it like the pros that they were.

They did their absolute best for their client, OJ.

Attorneys owe their duty to their clients, and not to anyone else.

It's the prosecutor's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, not the defense attorney's.

Our system is adversarial. It is not like the continental systems in which the official investigation is key.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #86)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:38 AM

118. They did their absolute best for their client, OJ.

Did anyone say otherwise?


Still doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #76)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:25 AM

149. The Facts are IMHO

O.J. was indeed at the crime scene and was an accessory to the Murders of Brown-Simpson and Goldman. The key is accessory! O.J. has always covered up for the true murder, which was his son by his first wife. It explains all the answers on the shoe print at the crime scene, blood in various areas and O.J.'s questionable behavior on the days/weeks after the murders.

He is not innocent by any means as being an accessory to a murder can equal life in prison if convicted but, under California Criminal Statues, he would not have faced the death penalty. His son in turned, would have. This is why the "cover up" took place.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #66)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:38 PM

101. Not only that, OJ was no average anything

Other than a murderer who perfectly fit the profile of a murderous abusive spouse.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chuckstevens (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:31 PM

18. if he were black and facing a white police department with a deeply racist history(like the LAPD)

he certainly would. Hell, I would, if I were black and in that situation, in L.A. or any other U.S. city.

People of color have no reason to ever trust law enforcement in this country.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:00 PM

52. I don't know if he did it or not.. always "thought" he did though.. and

I know what you mean about being Black and accused of a crime with the LAPD back then. But, this is O.J. Simpson.. I would have thought his celebrity would hold higher rank. The high profile running didn't look good at all.

He was found guilty in the civil suit brought by Ron Goldman's dad, Fred. Who is not buying the Glen Rogers Confession.

"O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman," Fred Goldman said in a statement Monday. "The criminal trial showed overwhelming and monumental evidence that O.J. Simpson was the killer. There was no contrary evidence other than guess, innuendo, and rumor. The fact of the acquittal at the hands of the jury will never wash away this murder from the hands of O.J. Simpson, no matter how many Glen Rogers pop up on the media radar screen."


How ironic that OJ is in prison for armed robbery.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:08 PM

64. Fred Goldman is entitled to his grief and his rage about his son's loss.

He should do the decent thing and stop demanding the actual money from the civil case...it can't bring Ron back and it just makes him look like a greedy asshole to insist on the cash. The money is beside the point.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #64)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:15 PM

71. I think he's entitled to his money and it does not make him look like any

such thing, imo.

It's moot now because of OJ's incarceration.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #71)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:25 PM

84. OK...he's legally entitled...but it's icky that he spent so much time actually trying to collect.

What was the point?

What good would it have done to get the money?

Why couldn't Fred be satisfied with the getting the judgment of responsibility and leave it at that?



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #84)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:34 PM

93. It's Moot Because O J Did Everything Within His Power To Escape The Judgment

But a large part of the verdict was in the form of a punitive judgment which literally means to punish.

Like every entitled asshole, OJ had everything and wanted more, the more being his ex wife...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #64)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:29 PM

88. How About The Parents That Lose A Child To A Drunk Driver Or An Negligent Physician?

Should they do the decent thing and stop demanding the actual money from the civil case...it can't bring their child back.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #88)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:22 AM

115. Not the same thing, really.

There's a legitimate economic need in those cases.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #64)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:48 AM

125. What a repulsive thing to say.

Grow up.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #125)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:54 AM

128. He should focus on healing his family.

That was more important than cash.

Money heals nothing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chuckstevens (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:36 PM

22. Walked off an Alaska Air flight at SeaTac and was really weird.

Had just spent 10 days for work at a floating camp at Polk Inlet on the mainland of SE Alaska east of Admiralty Island. That was my most massive day of being on aircraft. No radio, TV, newspapers or internet.

Worked several hours in field by helicopter in and out then caught mailplane into Juneau and Alaska Air to Ketchican and then SeaTac and PDX. Had a discussion with the stranger beside me about whether there were more bald eagles at the landfill in Sitka or Ketchican. I had never seen the Ketchican landfill.

SeaTac was silent and everyone was watching the white bronco.

I always have thought OJ guilty too. Sad and horrible.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:04 PM

58. I was walking through downtown Juneau that day, and in every bar on Franklin Street(the main drag)

EVERYBODY was silently watching that chase. I was sure he was going to off himself in the Bronco.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chuckstevens (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:52 AM

165. Not just that, there was a THICK and CLEAR blood trail and other evidence clearly PROVING he did it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:23 PM

9. Did he own Bruno Magli shoes?

Unfortunately, it was not until the civil trial that evidence surfaced of OJ's ownership of a peculiar pair of very expensive shoes which left a tread pattern in blood at the Bundy residence.

The case presented by the prosecution was indeed flawed. That is a separate reality from what happened at Bundy that night.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:46 PM

35. A celebrity will never be convicted in LA

Robert Blake is another example.

Hell, a jury reluctantly convicted Phil Spector, and they might as well have had a videotape of him doing it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #35)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:49 PM

39. It took 3 tries to convict the Menendez brothers and they confessed

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #35)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:03 PM

54. I've noticed that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:04 PM

56. The prosecution blew the case and the police planted evidence.

That was enough for an acquittal. It doesn't tell us what really happened, as you say.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:22 PM

79. The civil trial was much more interesting

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:26 PM

11. There's a problem with that guy's fantasy.

...he had been "partying" with Brown Simpson prior to her June 12, 1994, killing.

When? She was at a restaurant that night--not "partying" with a serial killer. She came home, put the kids to bed, and Ron Goldman came right behind her, and he was killed before he even got in the house--this story is a load of crap.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:29 PM

16. I didn't read that to mean immediately prior to the killing. It didn't even occur to me that he

 

meant that.

Could it just mean that he got to know her before the murder? Maybe to case her house?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:50 PM

40. That would have messed up her relationship with Mr. Goldman.

The man is talking out of his serial killer ass.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #40)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:38 PM

102. Surely your aren't implying that...

 

1) No one has ever cheated and gotten away with it?
2) No one has ever cheated even though they thought they might get caught (I imagine that a serial killer would put out a sexy vibe to many)
3) Nicole couldn't have had an open or non-exclusive relationship?
4) Nicole couldn't have made up her mind to break up with Ron?
5) He couldn't have possibly attended a party at her house without anything going on that would have threatened a relationship?

If the serial killer wants to take credit for the murder, he should tell how he did it in detail so that a forensics expert would see that he couldn't have mad it up. He should reveal details not know to the public.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #102)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:05 AM

109. I'm not implying anything. I said what I said and I was quite clear.


It's a farfetched load of bullshit, this little tale of "another killer." This was a horrible domestic abuse crime, plain and simple.

The nullification wasn't surprising, but that's down to culture, politics, an historically abusive police department, and the way the case was tried.

There aren't many if any "details not known to the public" about that case.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:03 PM

55. read book

http://www.amazon.com/J-Innocent-Can-Prove/dp/1616086203

It is excellent - private eye who spent a decade investigating.

You will not believe OJ murderer if you read it, promise

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #55)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:24 PM

82. Read "Murder in Brentwood"

And you will not believe OJ isn't the murderer.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #82)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:27 PM

85. old news. this book is more current and a result of years of investigation - investigation

that the LAPD didn't do.

You don't have to....just that I absolutely guarantee, hands down, you will not be so sure anymore.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #85)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:36 AM

117. old news.

And thus closer to the events.....

More reliable, IMO

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #85)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:42 AM

139. The most dangerous man (or woman) is one who has only read one book

Laura's conclusions are already set. Nothing she hears, sees, or reads will in any way change her mind. OJ writes a book confessing, and she still thinks he's not guilty.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atre (Reply #139)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:46 AM

148. You are fact challenged.

 

He did not confess. And even if he had, what kind of defense lawer doesn't realize that many innocent people have confessed?

As a justice on a circuit court, I must say that your internet legal credentials are suspect.


because I'm not really a justice, and if I were, I wouldn't be telling you of my expertise, I'd be SHOWING you by using my command of law, rules of evidence, etc.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #148)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:43 AM

153. Challenge me.

By PM if you wish. I graduated near the top of my class. An editor of law review. An author of a law review note on constitutional criminal procedure. I have worked as both a prosecutor and a defense lawyer. If you wish to challenge me on any area of law, feel free. Hit me with your best shot.

Your point certainly has a small glimmer of truth. Innocent people often do confess. Some of them seek attention (see the source of our discussion here). Some of them are coerced. Some of them are forced. I can't imagine which of those reasons would have prompted OJ to write a book titled, "If I did it." Do you?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:28 PM

12. I have 100 per cent doubt that OJ did it. The Rampart

 

Division that handled the case are the most crooked in LA history. Some of my doubts are exactly the same as yours.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:42 PM

103. I Thought The Rampart Division Is In Downtown L A . I Am Pretty Sure It Is. Near Koreatown

And yes it was corrupt as Hell... One of the assistant D A s who blew the lid on them is now in private practice and handled a case for my friend. He didn't come cheap but he was able to get a pre trial diversion for a case where the odds of getting a pre trial diversion are 100-1.

OJ lobbed off his wife and Ron Goldman's domes in tony Brentwood...That's far away...


Anyway, believing there are corrupt cops in LA and believing O J lobbed off Ron Goldman's and Nicole Simpson's domes are not mutually exclusive.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #103)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:41 AM

138. I think evidence was both planted and maybe tampered. I am having trouble with "are not mutually

 

exclusive"... Does this mean one condition could be true and the event still could have occurred? Yes, that's true, but it does not alter my belief. I was working as an Extra during that time. Most of the Extras did not believe OJ did it and would give all these reasons that sounded logical to me, which didn't really matter as I had already formed my own opinion. I do think OJ pulled the Vegas caper, although I think his punishment was over the top. So....., to each his own.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:28 PM

13. Had the Judge allowed the following evidence in, the verdict may have turned out differently...

Ito Won't Allow Evidence On Fibers Taken From O.j. Simpson's Bronco The Fbi Had Compared Fibers To Ones At The Murder Scene. The Report Was Denied To Defense Lawyers.
June 30, 1995|By Robin Clark, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

LOS ANGELES — Prosecutors hoping to end their case with a bang were reduced to a whimper yesterday when Judge Lance Ito reluctantly threw out what he called "very compelling circumstantial evidence" linking O.J. Simpson to his ex-wife's murder.

Ito said prosecutors had failed to disclose to defense lawyers, as required by law, the findings of an FBI analyst who compared carpet fibers from Simpson's Ford Bronco with fibers found on the case's bloody gloves and on a

knit cap recovered at the murder scene.

Ito said FBI agent Douglas Deedrick would be allowed to tell jurors that the fibers could have come from the same source. But he barred the agent from presenting detailed evidence on the rareness of the tan carpet, which his report said was installed only in Ford Broncos manufactured in late 1993 and early 1994.
>snip<
[link:http://articles.philly.com/1995-06-30/news/25692101_1_douglas-deedrick-fibers-johnnie-cochran|

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AKing (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:32 PM

19. Why would fibers from a man's vehicle being on his ex's person or on a cap she had be surprising? nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:52 PM

41. Besides the cap,the fibers were also on the bloody gloves. They obviously...

came from OJ's Bronco.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AKing (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:41 AM

137. By the time Cochran got through with the fiber evidence, they would have released Wayne Williams

Carpet fiber analysis is straight up bullshit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:29 PM

17. Too many people invested half their 1990s thinking about this case...

as if it was the most important thing ever, in all history, for any opinions to change now.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:35 PM

21. OJ

Fuck yeah.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:36 PM

23. I am guessing that you haven't seen the crime photos


The only time in my life I have bought the tabloids and the pictures were beyond shocking

Nicole wasn't stabbed she was decapitated.


Dunne had an interesting comment during the trial he said that one of OJ's attorney's told him that "OJ didn't do this, OJ on meth did it".

In his book "If I did it" OJ suggests that meth was what gave him the super human strength to do what he did. Simpson also states in the book that he stabbed Goldman first, incapacitated him and then went to town on Nicole.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:38 PM

25. Threads like this cause me to doubt humanity

Seriously? Anyone that has ANY doubt - let alone reasonable - given the facts that were presented seriously doesn't have the good sense to function in a self-governance model. There was a pattern of domestic violence abuse. There was evidence he had been stalking his ex-wife. Evidence of motive and intent abound. His blood was found at the scene. The blood of his victims was found at his house. And furthermore, the attempt to flee justice is completely incompatible with his contention that he did not commit the murder.

Please, please, please don't insult your own intelligence by buying any of this nonsense. OJ was guilty.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atre (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:56 PM

44. Do you think that Ron Goldman's fists had extensive bruising because he repeatedly punched a wall

 

instead of OJ for minutes? Why was he, in a several minutes death struggle, unable to put a mark on OJ?

And why is it impossible that whoever planted blood on that sock--and forgot to keep it from bleeding through to the other side--couldn't have planted OJ's blood at the scene?

And how did the conveniently "incriminating" poorly planted sock manage to move itself into place after the initial photos?

And why would a detective in one of the most corrupt police forces carry around a suspect's blood for extended periods of time?

Any one of these in isolation would raise reasonable doubt. Together, they make the prosecution's case look like Swiss cheese.

The best science in the world is no good if it's based on bad data. And it is more likely by far that there was planted evidence than that the blood actually did pass through OJ's ankle or that Ron punched OJ repeatedly and left no physical evidence.

There is such a thing as over-reliance on technology. That's why technical types are warned in school to test their advanced math and technical analyses using common sense.

Simple physics--blood can't pass through an intact ankle, for example--trumps FBI lab tests.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #44)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:22 PM

80. omg...someone who knows the facts of the case !

You have GOT to read
http://www.amazon.com/J-Innocent-Can-Prove/dp/1616086203

I promise you...it gives you a totally different perspective from someone who spent their own money investigating the case.

I would buy it for you if you give me your address. :>

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #80)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:58 PM

108. Nah, I can afford it and I may consider buying it.

 

But I'm no longer interested enough to make buying and reading it a priority.

I already concluded that the most likely scenario was that he was there but didn't do it himself. I didn't have an alternate suspect, but otherwise it sounds like I agree with the author.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #108)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:18 AM

113. well, it's 576

pages and I read it in 2 days. So, only get if you really have nothing else to do.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atre (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:58 PM

48. I agree 100%!!

Thanks!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atre (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:59 PM

49. Here is that 911 call, in case people have forgotten.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #49)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:01 AM

131. Oh my ....I missed all of this

what a horror, how can anyone doubt that he did not kill them. Is this 911 call the night of the murder? What took so long for the police to arrive?

Sorry, I was a workaholic those years and the whole thing was just such a circus and I did not pay much attention to it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #131)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:00 AM

169. No, it was not the night of the murder.

I've forgotten now, but it was either months or years prior to the murder.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atre (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:05 PM

60. comments like this make me cringe. It is an insult to one's intelligence for someone who doesn't

know all the facts to tell other people who might want to delve further that they are unintelligent.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #60)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:16 PM

73. Yeah, I try to give people a pass on the first gratuitous insult and deal strictly with the logic.

 

I wonder if the logic will get any attention?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #60)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:29 AM

134. Nope

I'm not calling anyone stupid. The greatest threat to humanity is the power of self-deception. You can be reasonably intelligent, but still wrong, wrong, wrong in the face of overwhelming proof. Aside from cases where there is a videotaped recording of the killing, there has perhaps not been a case of such significance in modern history with such a mountain of evidence of guilt. By the way, I have worked a number of years as a criminal defense lawyer. I spend my life trying criminal jury trials, including capital murder.

You can accuse me of not knowing anything about the case all you want. I'm not insulted. If you prefer to indulge childish fantasies that have no basis in reality, that's your decision.

The man wrote a book called "If I did it," detailing how he would have done killed his ex-wife. What innocent man would EVER even acknowledge motive and the fact of planning a murder? Even after it was all over, he is laughing in your faces. And you still buy the nonsense?

It may sound patronizing, and if so, so be it... but I really do feel sorry for you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atre (Reply #134)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:26 AM

144. Now you are compounding the insult.

 

25. Threads like this cause me to doubt humanity

Seriously? Anyone that has ANY doubt - let alone reasonable - given the facts that were presented seriously doesn't have the good sense to function in a self-governance model. There was a pattern of domestic violence abuse. There was evidence he had been stalking his ex-wife. Evidence of motive and intent abound. His blood was found at the scene. The blood of his victims was found at his house. And furthermore, the attempt to flee justice is completely incompatible with his contention that he did not commit the murder.

Please, please, please don't insult your own intelligence by buying any of this nonsense. OJ was guilty.



I'm not calling anyone stupid.


Your powers of interpretation are quite suspect if this is the best you can do interpreting your own words.

Seriously? Anyone that has ANY doubt - let alone reasonable - given the facts that were presented seriously doesn't have the good sense to function in a self-governance model.


Yes, you were calling me stupid.

The greatest threat to humanity is the power of self-deception. You can be reasonably intelligent, but still wrong, wrong, wrong in the face of overwhelming proof.


Ironic. You pontificate about self-deception while practicing it. The evidence that you were calling me stupid amounts to overwhelming proof.

By the way, I have worked a number of years as a criminal defense lawyer. I spend my life trying criminal jury trials, including capital murder.


People who tell instead of show, in my experience, are quite often incapable of showing. When people say "I'm a {fill in the blank}," and spew insults instead of using their professed knowledge to show the logic and truth of their position it's always so impressive. Even among the multitude of internet credentialed luminaries, you stand out. Congratulations.

You can accuse me of not knowing anything about the case all you want. I'm not insulted. If you prefer to indulge childish fantasies that have no basis in reality, that's your decision.


Another impressive logical point, free of personal insult, no doubt.

The man wrote a book called "If I did it," detailing how he would have done killed his ex-wife. What innocent man would EVER even acknowledge motive and the fact of planning a murder?


Yep, looks like proof beyond a reasonable doubt to me. There's no way an innocent man, certain he could never be prosecuted for the alleged murder, would come close to acknowledging motive, say perhaps out of desperation for money. Never mind that many people have falsely pled guilty to capitol offenses for various reasons. Hmmmm. A defense lawyer, you say?

Even after it was all over, he is laughing in your faces. And you still buy the nonsense?


Impressive argument.

It may sound patronizing, and if so, so be it... but I really do feel sorry for you.


It appears that you are condescending up. The poster you are replying to seems much more knowledgeable than you on this case. I hope s/he is charitable enough to feel sorry for you; all I can muster is contempt for your "reasoning."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:39 PM

26. In America, any successful black person is one they try to bring down. Every single time.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:41 PM

29. Denzel Washington has been arrested for murder?

Hadn't heard that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:59 PM

50. Patience, patience... (just kidding)

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:51 AM

127. What complete bullshit.

That's pathetic.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:46 AM

162. NOTHING to do with race. Don't go there. VAST evidence PROVES Simpson did this.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:40 PM

27. I watched the whole trial... O.J. did it.....

AND he was framed......

In other word, the bad police work included manufactured evidence that backfired on the prosecution..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudProgressiveNow (Reply #27)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:50 AM

164. That is CRAZY. No one was framed. MOUNTAINS of objective evidence PROVE Simpson did it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:41 PM

30. I have no doubt OJ Simpson was guilty of two murders.

But his and Robert Blake's trails proved that if you're a Hollywood celebrity, you CAN get away with murder. You might have to pay civilly afterwards, but you will walk on the murder charge.

I also thought that he would end up in prison for something. Someone with temper as violate as his will cross the line again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:43 PM

32. Once police (or the state) has been determined to lie about anything in a particular case


the criminal trial is 100% over for me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:43 PM

33. I didn't know ANYONE who thought he was guilty.

But I was a teenager working at a Target in an inner city. It's not like I was hanging around whites from the suburbs. I remember thinking that there was no way after the LA unrest of 1992 that Simpson would be convicted - the city could not afford more discord. I have no opinion now one way or the other because I haven't really studied the case.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:07 PM

62. Great comment ! Thanks for not saying you know "100%" since you haven't studied the case. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:45 PM

34. And what if I wrote Harry Potter?

 

I did, really. And then someone stole my hard drive. Seriously, I can't prove it but I did it. Look at how poorly written Rowling's new novel is.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:49 PM

38. Could Be Innocent

 

The theory that this Glen Rodgers was the real killer is not so far fetched. However, with new DNA Science that would be the most conclusive way to prove this case once and for all.

This murder case is still unsolved.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elbloggoZY27 (Reply #38)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:58 PM

47. The serial killer could also disclose details that only the murderer would know. n/t

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:56 PM

45. What about the reward he offered?

He made a big splash about offering this reward for the killer...

and then...*crickets*

Just say'n.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #45)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:37 PM

99. He said he was going to personally hunt down the killer. Of course, he couldn't do that.

It was himself.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:07 PM

63. OJ promised to look for the real killer after his acquittal

He did not do so.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #63)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:17 PM

74. Be fair, there are a LOT of golf courses to check... n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #63)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:30 PM

90. He didn't want to pay me the reward

Shortly after OJ started a website to collect information, I submitted the name of the killer.

They still haven't paid me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:10 PM

67. Please lets not go there again...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #67)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:20 PM

77. Agreed. My entire fall semester in 1998 was lost to the trial... in high school freshman Spanish.

The teacher was obsessed with the trial. And the female students. It was a terrible class and a terrible case.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #77)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:29 PM

89. that's interesting.... wonder what makes some people care less and some more in an unsolved

mystery.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #89)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:49 PM

106. Probably because they don't think it's unsolved. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #106)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:20 AM

114. but that's the difference. Hyper-Analytical people would never say something is 100% solved.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #114)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:35 AM

116. Sounds like a difficult existence to be "hyper-analytical" then

because precious little in life is 100% certain.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:17 PM

75. I always thought the police framed the right person

not enough that I would vote for conviction, however

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:36 PM

98. Tricks are for kids. In other words, O J did it. All that's missing is the actual video of him doing

it. Everything else is there. Motive, opportunity, blood at the scene, one of the matching murder gloves in his yard in the area where guest heard someone fall that night, cut on his hand, a missing bag he took with him in his limo to the airport, fleeing in his white bronco (legally considered evidence of guilt), etc.

A mountain of evidence.

This is the same argument that ohters have made about the green beret McDonald not killing his family because someone else "confessed" to a third person, supposedly. Even if someone else confessed (which was never proven to be true), but even if true, that doesn't take away the evidence that proved McDonald did it.

FIRST, you have to take away the evidence that shows he did it. Only then do you consider supposed evidence showing someone else did.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:49 PM

105. It's not the first time the cops framed a guilty man. That case was a total cluster.

I always thought the cops could have found O.J.'s clothes and murder weapon if they would have done their jobs. It may have cost a few million to quarantine all the garbage collection and search at the landfills but that's probably where the evidence ended up.

It didn't upset me that he got off. If the cops and prosecution screw up that bad, they deserve to lose.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:55 PM

107. The case against O.J. Was ironclad

The prosecution team was incompetent. This is a moneymaking scam on the gullible.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:06 AM

110. "Glen told him he had been "partying" with Brown Simpson prior to her June 12, 1994, killing."

There's testimony from multiple sources, most of whom are still alive, and could be impeached, as to how Nicole Brown Simpson spent her final hours and she wasn't partying with Glen Rogers.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:45 AM

120. What a bunch of pathetic bullshit.

Read "If I Did It." Cased closed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:55 AM

129. so...what size glove did this guy wear?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:26 AM

133. I have a bridge for sale...

interested?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #133)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:39 AM

136. I'll sell you one if you think the blood went through OJ's ankle as he wore it,

 

or that OJ was punched for minutes without a mark, or that the sock moved itself, or that LAPD cops could be trusted to carry a suspect's blood all over the city because of their sterling integrity.

That's what the jury was asked to believe.

I know what, I'll trade my bridge for your bridge and $10,000. Bank check or money order only.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #136)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:45 AM

140. OJ wrote a book confessing. Can I take my $10,000 in small bills?

The ends of a sock, when removed from the human body, touch each other. I know that's surprising, but it's true. Try it out.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atre (Reply #140)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:28 AM

145. Not the ends, the sides. The blood did not move from toe to calf (or shin).

 

And this may amaze you, but blood dries. Fast. At least in the quantities that were on the sock.

The prosecution theory, IIRC, was that OJ took the sock off after driving home. The blood would not have gone through the sock as it did.

And you probably think that the sock was possessed and hid itself in the first pictures while allowing itself to be seen in the second set?

And no, OJ did not confess. Look the word up; use either a standard English or an English language legal dictionary. Get help if necessary.

No, I won't accept bills; send a check. A bank check.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #145)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:48 AM

154. Do I hear crickets?

No explanation for "If I did it?"

The pervasive pattern of domestic violence and stalking was merely a coincidence? The DNA evidence - a miracle? The conduct of OJ in trying to flee, threatening suicide -- also coincidental?

I don't think I'm going to convince you. I know you're not going to convince me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:33 AM

151. and then there was that corrupt old white haired cop Philip Van Asswipe or something like that

 

Funny how he was also part of hundreds of other "ODD" cases over the years.

When that movie L.A. Confidential was made, PVA probably was the major inspiration for it.

wasn't he also part of the Rodney King lynching?

I think PVA also almost f-'d up the Mannson investigation, actually blaming the husband of the dead star and not Chuck himself.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:38 AM

152. In this weasel, glens dreams maybe

OJ was guilty of that murder and if I'd been on that jury I'd have convicted him.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:13 AM

159. I told friends the same thing

To this day I do not believe OJ Simpson killed his wife or Ron Goldman. No one can hide that much forensic evidence that well from such a horrific crime scene in a 2 hour time line. But if the police chose to ignore evidence that didn't go toward conviction of O.J. and instead planted evidence seemed more viable. But I do believe OJ was connected in some way to the killings. He hired the killers is my guess. Hence, the slow speed pursuit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:22 AM

160. Right.

That's why he hauled ass down the 405 freeway with several dozen cop cars chasing him right after her murder.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:44 AM

161. TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULLSHIT ! EVERY BIT OF THE EVIDENCE PROVES SIMPSON DID IT ! GET REAL !

This is BULLSHIT. Pure BULLSHIT. Every single bit of the OVERWHELMING evidence points to Simpson, the ANGRY ex husband of Nicole Brown Simpson. The crime was a close-up very personal attack, born out of very deep PERSONAL ANGER toward the primary victim. Ron Brown arrived on the scene at the wrong time to return glasses to Nicole and was blitzed by Simpson. There was AMPLE evidence to convict Simpson, and but for some weaknesses in the prosecution's presentation, that would have happened. Simpson was found responsible for wrongful death in the civil trial. CASE CLOSED.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:09 AM

166. I never was 100% sure he was guilty

When my mom was still working, she said that everybody in her office thought OJ was guilty...and that these same people were RW Republicans, notorious for telling racist jokes at work.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:21 AM

170. I Doubt This Low Life Drifter Was "Partying" With Nicole Brown Simpson

When testimony came out she was partying with folks like Don Henley...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:32 AM

173. There are "documentaries" saying the olocaust didn't happen

I give the film mentioned in the OP the same amount of accuracy and truth. Zero.

O.J. Simpson was a domestic abuser who murdered Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, and whose money and luck at trial got him off.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:35 AM

176. Locking - not Latest Breaking News

This is a preview of a speculative documentary (which nevertheless suggests OJ was involved in the murder anyway). And it seems good for endless speculation. I suggest the Showbiz, TV Chat, or GD groups/forum for this. Or even Creative Speculation, if you want to let the theories run free.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink