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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)There are also docs that claim LBJ had JFK assassinated. And they are run on "legitimate" networks.
aaaaaa5a
(4,686 posts)
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.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)aaaaaa5a
(4,686 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Not facts. There is a difference.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)on what others say is fact? No?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....is a problem for a show calling itself The History Channel.
Archae
(47,245 posts)And then there is off the deep end nuttiness.
Those UFO programs are the latter. Not the former.
cali
(114,904 posts)william cail
(32 posts)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.
bluemarkers
(536 posts)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.
CuriousAboutPolls
(66 posts)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.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Except for the rare occasion htey run something legitimately historical... that doesn't revolve around the wehrmacht.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)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.
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)"The Men Who Killed Kennedy"?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Mind you, they had numerous installments, claiming everyone from the CIA, to Castro to the Mob did it.
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)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.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....and diminish the credibility of finding the truth.
Although, at least they didn't claim aliens did it.
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)and I thought they looked at some of the theories and dismissed them.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)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.”
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)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
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)But considering you think no one should be arrested for murder, your opinion is somewhat irrelevant.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)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.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Try to keep up.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)for the same crime. He was tried for kidnapping people in the second trial.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)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.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)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.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)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?
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)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.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)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.
Skittles
(171,716 posts)yeah, he did
http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html
Blasphemer
(3,623 posts)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."
Skittles
(171,716 posts)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
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)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.
Skittles
(171,716 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)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.
Nightjock
(1,408 posts)I watched every second of that trial and you echo my thoughts
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)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.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
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.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He had excellent comedic timing and good screen presence.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)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.
bluemarkers
(536 posts)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
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)He is. I agree. I love those movies....partly because of OJ...he now makes them even MORE surreal!
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to prove he did it. There were problems with the timeline.
We'll never know for sure.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)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.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)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.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)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?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)
DeltaLitProf
(882 posts)This is absolutely superb.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)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.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)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.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)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.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)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.
NavyMom
(178 posts)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.
chuckstevens
(1,201 posts)I have ZERO doubt that OJ did. Would an innocent man be suicidal and lead police on the Bronco chase?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
madinmaryland
(65,729 posts)be suicidal.
Zero Doubt??
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I'm not quite as sure as you that race played much of a factor here.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)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.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)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)
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)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.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Did anyone say otherwise?
Still doesn't mean he didn't do it.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)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.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Other than a murderer who perfectly fit the profile of a murderous abusive spouse.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)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.
Cha
(319,079 posts)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.
How ironic that OJ is in prison for armed robbery.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)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.
Cha
(319,079 posts)such thing, imo.
It's moot now because of OJ's incarceration.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)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?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)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...
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)Should they do the decent thing and stop demanding the actual money from the civil case...it can't bring their child back.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's a legitimate economic need in those cases.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Grow up.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That was more important than cash.
Money heals nothing.
PufPuf23
(9,854 posts)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.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)EVERYBODY was silently watching that chase. I was sure he was going to off himself in the Bronco.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)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.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)
yardwork
(69,364 posts)yardwork
(69,364 posts)That was enough for an acquittal. It doesn't tell us what really happened, as you say.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)meant that.
Could it just mean that he got to know her before the murder? Maybe to case her house?
MADem
(135,425 posts)The man is talking out of his serial killer ass.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)It is excellent - private eye who spent a decade investigating.
You will not believe OJ murderer if you read it, promise
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And you will not believe OJ isn't the murderer.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)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.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And thus closer to the events.....
More reliable, IMO
atre
(1,270 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
atre
(1,270 posts)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?
plethoro
(594 posts)Division that handled the case are the most crooked in LA history. Some of my doubts are exactly the same as yours.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)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.
plethoro
(594 posts)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.
AKing
(511 posts)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<
http://articles.philly.com/1995-06-30/news/25692101_1_douglas-deedrick-fibers-johnnie-cochran
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)AKing
(511 posts)came from OJ's Bronco.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Carpet fiber analysis is straight up bullshit.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)as if it was the most important thing ever, in all history, for any opinions to change now.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)Fuck yeah.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)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.
atre
(1,270 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)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. :>
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)pages and I read it in 2 days. So, only get if you really have nothing else to do.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)Thanks!!
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
Tumbulu
(6,630 posts)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.
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)I've forgotten now, but it was either months or years prior to the murder.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)know all the facts to tell other people who might want to delve further that they are unintelligent.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I wonder if the logic will get any attention?
atre
(1,270 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
Your powers of interpretation are quite suspect if this is the best you can do interpreting your own words.
Yes, you were calling me stupid.
Ironic. You pontificate about self-deception while practicing it. The evidence that you were calling me stupid amounts to overwhelming proof.
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.
Another impressive logical point, free of personal insult, no doubt.
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?
Impressive argument.
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."
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Hadn't heard that.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)That's pathetic.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,189 posts)AND he was framed......
In other word, the bad police work included manufactured evidence that backfired on the prosecution..
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)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.
aaaaaa5a
(4,686 posts)the criminal trial is 100% over for me.
David__77
(24,728 posts)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.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)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.
elbloggoZY27
(283 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)He made a big splash about offering this reward for the killer...
and then...*crickets*
Just say'n.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It was himself.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)He did not do so.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Shortly after OJ started a website to collect information, I submitted the name of the killer.
They still haven't paid me.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)The teacher was obsessed with the trial. And the female students. It was a terrible class and a terrible case.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)mystery.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)because precious little in life is 100% certain.
mitchtv
(17,718 posts)not enough that I would vote for conviction, however
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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.
brewens
(15,359 posts)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.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The prosecution team was incompetent. This is a moneymaking scam on the gullible.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)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.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Read "If I Did It." Cased closed.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)interested?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
atre
(1,270 posts)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.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)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.
atre
(1,270 posts)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.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)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.
madokie
(51,076 posts)OJ was guilty of that murder and if I'd been on that jury I'd have convicted him.
UCmeNdc
(9,655 posts)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.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)That's why he hauled ass down the 405 freeway with several dozen cop cars chasing him right after her murder. 
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)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.
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)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.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)When testimony came out she was partying with folks like Don Henley...
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)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.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,212 posts)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.