If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Private investigator says that OJ Simpson didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman...it was none other than...THE BUTLER. No, just kidding, he claims OJ's son did it   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 231
    More: Followup, Nicole Brown Simpson, O.J. Simpson, Ron Goldman, circumstantial evidence, prime suspect, New York Post  
•       •       •

14178 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2012 at 3:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-01 07:55:13 PM
Well maybe my sister is right. She's claimed it was OJ's son since before OJ's trial.
 
2012-04-01 08:32:17 PM
I don't buy it. Other than alleged anger issues, what motivations would Jason Simpson have to murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?
 
2012-04-01 09:02:35 PM

Bathia_Mapes: I don't buy it. Other than alleged anger issues, what motivations would Jason Simpson have to murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?


To protect daddy, possibly. I dunno. But I bet the gloves fit.
 
2012-04-01 09:13:11 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Bathia_Mapes: I don't buy it. Other than alleged anger issues, what motivations would Jason Simpson have to murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

To protect daddy, possibly. I dunno. But I bet the gloves fit.


To protect daddy from what? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I managed to read OJ's book, "If I Did It" when the manuscript was posted online. OJ confessed to committing the murders.
 
2012-04-01 10:20:46 PM

Bathia_Mapes: I don't buy it. Other than alleged anger issues, what motivations would Jason Simpson have to murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?


It's simply fun to kill people. Don't you know that?
 
2012-04-01 10:53:11 PM

Bathia_Mapes: I don't buy it. Other than alleged anger issues, what motivations would Jason Simpson have to murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?


Who hasn't wanted to kill their stepmother? (I'm assuming it was her stepmother)

/not me of course. My stepmom is awesome.
 
2012-04-01 11:06:08 PM

Bathia_Mapes: OJ confessed to committing the murders.


He was going to do that in the book even if he didn't do it. He can't be put on trial again. So why not admit it and make money?
 
2012-04-01 11:10:59 PM

Ambivalence: Bathia_Mapes: I don't buy it. Other than alleged anger issues, what motivations would Jason Simpson have to murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Who hasn't wanted to kill their stepmother? (I'm assuming it was her stepmother)

/not me of course. My stepmom is awesome.


Nicole was indeed Jason's stepmother.
 
2012-04-01 11:18:10 PM
I can't believe there are still people who think OJ didnt actually kill those two people.
 
2012-04-01 11:33:33 PM

Ambivalence: Bathia_Mapes: I don't buy it. Other than alleged anger issues, what motivations would Jason Simpson have to murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Who hasn't wanted to kill their stepmother? (I'm assuming it was her stepmother)

/not me of course. My stepmom is awesome.


Yes, yes she is.
 
2012-04-01 11:35:45 PM
He also found photographs of Jason Simpson wearing a knit cap, similar to one that was discovered at the crime scene. Prosecutors were unable to link the hat to OJ Simpson.

Really? A picture of him wearing a black knit cap is evidence of his guilt? I guess I could be the murderer then
 
2012-04-01 11:53:53 PM

Bathia_Mapes: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Bathia_Mapes: I don't buy it. Other than alleged anger issues, what motivations would Jason Simpson have to murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

To protect daddy, possibly. I dunno. But I bet the gloves fit.

To protect daddy from what? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I managed to read OJ's book, "If I Did It" when the manuscript was posted online. OJ confessed to committing the murders.


OJ may have written that to protect sonny. He couldn't be put on trial again, so why not?

DamnYankees: I can't believe there are still people who think OJ didnt actually kill those two people.


A jury didn't. Myself, I have no idea who did it. I just know OJ stood trial and was found Not Guilty.
 
2012-04-02 12:08:17 AM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: DamnYankees: I can't believe there are still people who think OJ didnt actually kill those two people.

A jury didn't. Myself, I have no idea who did it. I just know OJ stood trial and was found Not Guilty.


...are you being serious? OJ Simpson is so obviously guilty it's just...I mean, he clearly killed those people. If you think a jury's decision bears a significant relationship to actual guilt on these types of crimes, you need to read more.
 
2012-04-02 12:12:06 AM

DamnYankees: I can't believe there are still people who think OJ didnt actually kill those two people.


I was too young to really pay attention and OJ was really funny in the Naked Gun movies. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.

I don't know who else would have killed those two, or how they'd get all the evidence in OJ's car and property, but stranger things have happened and he's in jail now anyway.

Besides, I really REALLY REALLY hate that the families were able to take him to civil court after he was not convicted in a criminal one. That's not fair. Either you're responsible for all of something or none of it. None of this bullshiat "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em." stuff. The lawyers who even try to engage in that kind of thing should be disbarred for a year, then permanently for a second offense.
 
2012-04-02 12:13:35 AM

DamnYankees: If you think a jury's decision bears a significant relationship to actual guilt on these types of crimes, you need to read more.


If a jury says you're "not guilty" then it wasn't a crime.
 
2012-04-02 12:16:08 AM

doglover: Besides, I really REALLY REALLY hate that the families were able to take him to civil court after he was not convicted in a criminal one. That's not fair. Either you're responsible for all of something or none of it. None of this bullshiat "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em." stuff. The lawyers who even try to engage in that kind of thing should be disbarred for a year, then permanently for a second offense.


See, I feel completely the opposite. The reason OJ Simpson was not convicted was that the prosecutors and the judge farked up to a ridiculous degree. Incredibly bad lawyering and judging. Now think of it from Fred Goldman's perspective - this dude killed your son, and he was let off the hook because of incompetent third parties you had no part in selecting. Why shouldn't you be able to sue the guy for wrongful death? It's not your fault he was let off the hook at his criminal hearing.

Besides which, the standards of proof are lower in a civil court, so you can't even really make the comparison. It's perfectly possible for the evidence against someone to be clear and convincing, but not beyond a reasonable doubt
 
2012-04-02 12:18:19 AM

doglover: DamnYankees: If you think a jury's decision bears a significant relationship to actual guilt on these types of crimes, you need to read more.

If a jury says you're "not guilty" then it wasn't a crime.


Well, it clearly was a crime. Two people were murdered, no one denies that. You also can't really mean that a not guilty verdict means you are innocent, since people who commit crimes get off all the time. You can't really deny that either.

All a not guilty verdict means is a specific jury thought that the state was unable to present enough evidence at a trial to justify punishing a specific person for a specific act. That's really all it means in and of itself.
 
2012-04-02 12:26:30 AM

doglover: DamnYankees: I can't believe there are still people who think OJ didnt actually kill those two people.

I was too young to really pay attention and OJ was really funny in the Naked Gun movies. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.

I don't know who else would have killed those two, or how they'd get all the evidence in OJ's car and property, but stranger things have happened and he's in jail now anyway.

Besides, I really REALLY REALLY hate that the families were able to take him to civil court after he was not convicted in a criminal one. That's not fair. Either you're responsible for all of something or none of it. None of this bullshiat "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em." stuff. The lawyers who even try to engage in that kind of thing should be disbarred for a year, then permanently for a second offense.


So you think civil cases should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Or that if a prosecutor screws up or the accused gets off on a technicality or with tricks (as OJ did) that the people who have suffered because of the crime should have no recourse?
 
2012-04-02 12:29:23 AM

DamnYankees: doglover: DamnYankees: If you think a jury's decision bears a significant relationship to actual guilt on these types of crimes, you need to read more.

If a jury says you're "not guilty" then it wasn't a crime.

Well, it clearly was a crime. Two people were murdered, no one denies that. You also can't really mean that a not guilty verdict means you are innocent, since people who commit crimes get off all the time. You can't really deny that either.

All a not guilty verdict means is a specific jury thought that the state was unable to present enough evidence at a trial to justify punishing a specific person for a specific act. That's really all it means in and of itself.


Correct. Two people were brutally murdered (I believe by OJ). Just because he got off because Ito couldn't control his courtroom does not mean their deaths were not a crime. And a finding of innocence is a very rare thing, to the point that it was big news when the special prosecutor said it about the Duke lacrosse boys.
 
2012-04-02 12:30:13 AM

DamnYankees: the standards of proof are lower in a civil court, so you can't even really make the comparison.


Um, do you even listen to yourself think?

The standards of proof are lower in civil court.
Thus it's tautological that the standards of proof must be higher in civil court.


When a criminal trial with it's superior rigor fails to produce enough evidence to convict someone for a criminal act and hold them responsible for the legal penalties owed to society as a whole, they have been cleared more thoroughly than is even necessary in civil court.

Holding a civil trial after that is basically saying the law is meaningless. It's like saying "While NASA has telescopes aimed at the Apollo mission landing sites and you can see a laser reflected off of some of them in real time with your own eyes, let's ignore that and see this picture of my friend Bert in Arizona. Clearly it looks like the moon so humans couldn't possibly have ever landed on the moon." It's just not a good way to do things.
 
2012-04-02 12:34:43 AM

doglover: The standards of proof are lower in civil court.
Thus it's tautological that the standards of proof must be higher in civil court.


What? I think you mistyped something, because this doesn't make sense.

doglover: When a criminal trial with it's superior rigor fails to produce enough evidence to convict someone for a criminal act and hold them responsible for the legal penalties owed to society as a whole, they have been cleared more thoroughly than is even necessary in civil court.


I think you are confused. There are no different rules of 'rigor' between criminal and civil cases. The standards of guilt are different, that's all. Think of it this way - after a trial, the jury is 85% sure the defendant is guilty. In a criminal case, you need to be sure 'beyond a reasonable doubt - maybe we can set this threshold at 95% certainty. So if this was a criminal case, the defendant would be found not guilty.

But civil cases are different - you only need 'clear and convincing' evidence of guilt. Maybe we envision this as being two-thirds sure, so 67%. Or another standard sometimes used is 'the preponderance of the evidence', which literally means 51% sure. In either case, given the information above the defendant would be find guilty ("liable") in the civil case. So why shouldn't the plaintiff in the civil case be able to get their judgment?
 
2012-04-02 12:43:37 AM

doglover: DamnYankees: the standards of proof are lower in a civil court, so you can't even really make the comparison.

Um, do you even listen to yourself think?

The standards of proof are lower in civil court.
Thus it's tautological that the standards of proof must be higher in civil court.


When a criminal trial with it's superior rigor fails to produce enough evidence to convict someone for a criminal act and hold them responsible for the legal penalties owed to society as a whole, they have been cleared more thoroughly than is even necessary in civil court.

Holding a civil trial after that is basically saying the law is meaningless. It's like saying "While NASA has telescopes aimed at the Apollo mission landing sites and you can see a laser reflected off of some of them in real time with your own eyes, let's ignore that and see this picture of my friend Bert in Arizona. Clearly it looks like the moon so humans couldn't possibly have ever landed on the moon." It's just not a good way to do things.


You have no idea what you are talking about. You're saying essentially that if a student fails to get an A+ on a test, they can't get any grade at all. Standards are higher in criminal trials because the state is taking away liberty. What would you say if the case is dismissed or not prosecuted for any reason? Or a plea bargain is struck? Can the victim or their family only sue for the amount due for the lesser crime?
 
2012-04-02 12:52:18 AM

ArkAngel: the people who have suffered because of the crime should have no recourse?


That's what the appeals process is for. Basically I'd like to ensure that trials like the OJ trial never happen. If he's obviously that guilty, there shouldn't have been so much farking up by the prosecution and there shouldn't have been so many lawyer tricks the defense could use.

But, once you've gone through the criminal side of things, it should be game over. Post criminal trial civil suits are to justice what cancer is to health.

Ron Goldman was a waiter. His life, sadly, was not worth $33 million just because OJ happened to have that much in the bank. If he was killed at his own home possibly by another waiter, who was subsequently found to have not done so in a criminal court, the following civil settlement wouldn't have cracked the hundred thousand mark if they'd have even bothered to sue at all.

No. It's double jeopardy by another name. I'll not support it.
 
2012-04-02 12:56:32 AM

doglover: That's what the appeals process is for.


Prosecutors can't appeal.

No offense, but I really don't think you understand the system you're criticizing, or why we've set things up the way they are. I realize there are lots of areas where non-lawyers may have a better perspective than lawyers, and can point out where we're wrong or are too in the weeds, but you're not really doing that right now.
 
2012-04-02 01:04:53 AM

ArkAngel: an the victim or their family only sue for the amount due for the lesser crime?


I don't think they should be allowed to sue at all. The damages should be part of the criminal side of crime.

What we've got now is too confusing.

DamnYankees: I really don't think you understand the system you're criticizing, or why we've set things up the way they are.


That's right. But basically the American legal system is so messed up you can kill someone and not have to pay any money at all to the family after being found guilty and sent to jail. But you can not kill someone and be found liable in civil court and have to pay insane money to the family for something you (possibly) didn't even do.

That's farked up. Much better are the laws where civil lawsuits are for non-criminal things only. There should be no separation, no lower burden of proof, and a lot less technicalities. Back in the day, there were sensible laws that said specifically how much money you had to pay if you were found guilty of something. That should be the end of it.

The whole system needs an overhaul. We've been tacking things onto it for so long, It's become Rube Goldberg's wet dream.
 
2012-04-02 01:08:19 AM

doglover: But basically the American legal system is so messed up you can kill someone and not have to pay any money at all to the family after being found guilty and sent to jail.


This is not true. If you are found guilty in a criminal trial, you are presumed guilty in the civil trial - I'm not even sure you need to have a civil trial. Not sure about that. This goes back to the standard of guilt above.

Guilty at criminal court means necessarily guilty in civil court.
Not guilty in criminal court DOES NOT mean not guilty in criminal court.

It actually does make sense.

doglover: Back in the day, there were sensible laws that said specifically how much money you had to pay if you were found guilty of something.


This is not true, either. As far as I know, there's never been a conflation of of criminal and civil cases in US history.
 
2012-04-02 01:42:53 AM
I'm willing to believe OJ's son did it.
www.radaronline.com
Just look at those cold dead eyes.
 
2012-04-02 04:05:47 AM

doglover:

I was too young to really pay attention .


I wasn't.

OJ was so guilty it was laughable. If you were too young to pay attention, how, exactly, do you have the gall to argue the case now?
 
2012-04-02 04:06:24 AM
On the upside, at least OJ isn't going to have to go far to find the real killers now.
 
2012-04-02 04:09:25 AM
Christ.

Daily Mail! This book came out years ago.
 
2012-04-02 04:10:43 AM
I can only hope that O.J. has stood by his oath to find the real killer after all these years.
 
2012-04-02 04:12:33 AM
I was too young to remember the trial but I do remember watching a "memorable moments of the 90's" show that showed a video of him driving down the interstate in a white SUV while half of the LAPD followed him.

It just didn't strike me as the actions of an innocent man.
 
2012-04-02 04:13:11 AM
Let me amend and update my statement of outrage:

Christ.

Daily Mail! This theory was out years ago (see the documentaries, interviews he did on YouTube).
 
2012-04-02 04:13:19 AM

ArkAngel: He also found photographs of Jason Simpson wearing a knit cap, similar to one that was discovered at the crime scene. Prosecutors were unable to link the hat to OJ Simpson.

Really? A picture of him wearing a black knit cap is evidence of his guilt? I guess I could be the murderer then


If only he was wearing a hoodie, then we could conclusively say he's guilty.
 
2012-04-02 04:15:27 AM

DamnYankees: I can't believe there are still people who think OJ didnt actually kill those two people.


A jury of his peers acquitted him.
 
2012-04-02 04:17:36 AM
Isn't this guy just an attention wh0re trying to make a quick buck?

emotional subject + infamous murder + cornball theory = $$$

Been happening for a while now, and I tend not to trust these types of books. It's getting a bit obvious that they're nothing more than grabs-for-cash.

These are the people who saw an overcrowded marketplace and said, "Me too!" -- Homer Simpson

// I must admit he chose a great subject - surprised it hasn't been done already
 
2012-04-02 04:18:38 AM
I'm still betting on Colombian drug runners.
 
2012-04-02 04:18:52 AM
For years, my wife has insisted that OJ's son did it.

She reads lots of crime books, so she knows her shiat.

STOP LAUGHING!

Based on her expert tutelage, I'm also convinced that, in a completely different case, Col. Mustard did it in the Abandoned Boat House with the Phaser set to Inverse Tachyon Fry. But that's another story that hasn't happened yet ;)
 
2012-04-02 04:21:30 AM

DamnYankees: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: DamnYankees: I can't believe there are still people who think OJ didnt actually kill those two people.

A jury didn't. Myself, I have no idea who did it. I just know OJ stood trial and was found Not Guilty.

...are you being serious? OJ Simpson is so obviously guilty it's just...I mean, he clearly killed those people. If you think a jury's decision bears a significant relationship to actual guilt on these types of crimes, you need to read more.


The jury was at the trial. What should they have read up on? It was kind of funny though, imagine a trial where the police weren't trusted witnesses.
 
2012-04-02 04:26:54 AM
Wait, I'm confused. Did Jason Simpson just... hang onto the knife and cap for years and years and then decide randomly one day recently to pitch them out? Right when this PI guy decided to dig through his trash?
 
2012-04-02 04:29:22 AM
The entire trial was televised. The average viewer probably knew more than the jury, because they got to watch things the jury wasn't allowed to see. I think half the country tuned in for the verdict. I know I got out of bed to watch.

Man, those were some good times. Of course OJ was guilty.
 
2012-04-02 04:31:11 AM

DamnYankees: I can't believe there are still people who think OJ didnt actually kill those two people.


I have always thought he did but this would make some sense too.

It would still put the trace evidence at OJ's house, explain OJ's mental break that led to the white Bronco chase, etc.

As far as motive, well the white biatch who ditched your father (and you too if the relationship was close before their seperation) is nailing younger guys while spending YOUR inheritance. I've seen worse motives.

Kinda funny though if it were to turn out that OJ was playing the heavy to save his son. Still think it's OJ but this is the first alternative theory I've heard that makes any sense
 
Skr
2012-04-02 04:31:37 AM
A father protecting his son would not be out of the realm of possibility. Honestly 100% more believable than "Some Puerto Rican Guy." If he did bite that bullet for his son, it was pretty epic. Meh I suppose it is conspiracy theory. Though that White Bronco chase I saw as kid was very long and seemed like stalling/diversion. The "If I did It" could have very well been a false confession to keep the suspicions off the son.
 
2012-04-02 04:33:23 AM
I've always thought that was a possibility. The Timeline and actions that were presented described OJ has more of an accessory/accomplice than participant. The son would have had access to the Bronco.

Maybe.
 
2012-04-02 04:33:37 AM
TFA + TFthread = solved murder case

/what a waste of my time
//the glove doesn't fit you must quit
 
2012-04-02 04:35:22 AM

Digitalstrange: DamnYankees: I can't believe there are still people who think OJ didnt actually kill those two people.

I have always thought he did but this would make some sense too.

It would still put the trace evidence at OJ's house, explain OJ's mental break that led to the white Bronco chase, etc.

As far as motive, well the white biatch who ditched your father (and you too if the relationship was close before their seperation) is nailing younger guys while spending YOUR inheritance. I've seen worse motives.

Kinda funny though if it were to turn out that OJ was playing the heavy to save his son. Still think it's OJ but this is the first alternative theory I've heard that makes any sense


Colombian. Drug. Dealers.
 
2012-04-02 04:39:58 AM

Confabulat: The entire trial was televised. The average viewer probably knew more than the jury, because they got to watch things the jury wasn't allowed to see. I think half the country tuned in for the verdict. I know I got out of bed to watch.

Man, those were some good times. Of course OJ was guilty.


I was getting out of shop class when it happened. I thought it was going to be a full on middle school riot. It was crazy.
 
2012-04-02 04:40:45 AM

Bathia_Mapes: I don't buy it. Other than alleged anger issues, what motivations would Jason Simpson have to murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?


He was standing his ground?

/sorry for that
 
2012-04-02 04:53:32 AM

heinrich66: Christ.

Daily Mail! This book came out years ago.


This guy did write a book about O.J. Simpson in 2001 that was titled, "O.J. Is Guilty But Not of Murder", but this current book "O.J. is Innocent and I Can Prove It: The Shocking Truth about the Murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman" is brand new and is scheduled to be released in 2012.

Not that I believe this crackpot. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to not give much credence to people like William Dear, especially when you know he was an investigator on "Alien Autopsy". Sounds like he'll do just about anything to make a buck, even if it's sketchy.
 
2012-04-02 04:54:28 AM

Dubai Vol: doglover:

I was too young to really pay attention .

I wasn't.

OJ was so guilty it was laughable. If you were too young to pay attention, how, exactly, do you have the gall to argue the case now?


Stated perfectly and with aplomb.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report