Big Ramifications: 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

Same reason there are endless books about JFK and moon landing conspiracy theories. Despite overwhelming evidence Oswald killed JFK and we landed on the moon, there's a marketplace for crackpots who eat up any conspiracy no matter how outlandish.

Sorry, no cookie.

In order for the son to have done it, he would have had to get Daddy's car, smear it with blood, break into the house and leave bloody socks, and stash a bloody glove behind the house.

No chance of that.

A murderer will give himself away in tiny ways, and in this case O.J. asked the limo driver what time it was---when he already knew---and he also said he did not hear the door bell because he was:

1. Chipping golf balls;
2. In the shower;
3. Taking a nap.

An innocent man would not have had a reason to lie over something so trivial, it is the timy details which prove O.J.'s guilt.

MisterRonbo: chuckufarlie: MisterRonbo: The investigators looked at him at the time, he had a solid alibi.

Meanwhile, the victims and OJs blood were smeared on the console of the Bronco. The glove at his house. The limo driver who saw him come in. The Bruno Magli shoeprints.

Seriously, there's no doubt here.

you seem to have your information wrong. A very, very small amount of blood was found in the Bronco. I am no expert on DNA but OJ and his son would share many of the same indicators. The detective believes that OJs son called OJ after the fact and OJ went to the house to see if it was true. The detective also found the murder weapon in some boxes that the son had left in a storage bin. He also found photos of the son wearing the hat found at the murder scene - lots of photos of him in the hat prior to the murder and none after.

The son also has a history of mental problems and has been institutionalized several times.

The detective makes a very good case.

A small amount of blood?

Uh no, it was big smears. The DNA matched to OJ. Billions to one.

Seriously, you're being ridiculous. Just because this guy claims he has a knife and claims it was Jasons and claims its the murder weapon, doesn't mean it is. Its not like matching a bullet to a gun.

The man does have a knife and he can prove that it was in the storage unit owned by OJs son. The shape of the blade matches the wounds inflicted.

You obviously have no idea about familial DNA matches.

Instead of blindly accepting what you heard on TV newscasts, maybe you could be open minded enough to do a little research on your own - or read the book of a qualified investigator who did do some research,

DamnYankees: ...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.

Yeah, juries are pointless in our court system.

Okay, number one, your honor? Just look at him.
And B, we've got all this evidence about how, like, this guy, like,
didn't pay at the hospital, okay? Like, six billion dollars?
And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo. And I'm all... You
got to be shiatting me! But check it out, man.
Judge should be like, Guilty! Peace!

The only "fact" that came out of the OJ trial was that the cops were intentionally incompetent in their handling of the evidence. Once that came out, anything else they said was meaningless and the entire trial was basically over. NO ONE on this board knows what happened. And we never will. Any evidence that may ever be recovered by the LAPD is permanently ruined and subject to skepticism.

olddinosaur Smartest
Funniest
2012-04-02 12:24:37 PM


Sorry, no cookie.

In order for the son to have done it, he would have had to get Daddy's car, smear it with blood, break into the house and leave bloody socks, and stash a bloody glove behind the house.
No chance of that.

A murderer will give himself away in tiny ways, and in this case O.J. asked the limo driver what time it was---when he already knew---and he also said he did not hear the door bell because he was:

1. Chipping golf balls;
2. In the shower;
3. Taking a nap.

An innocent man would not have had a reason to lie over something so trivial, it is the timy details which prove O.J.'s guilt.



Actually, IF OJ were trying to cover it up after the fact, it would explain all of that.

You can still have a cookie, though

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 a chef at a restaurant and had invited Nicole and family to the restaurant to show off his abilities. She did not show up, she did not phone to call off. Supposedly, the son went to her place to ask her why she had not showed up. Then add the anger issues and mental problems........

Other investigations he has worked on are the Exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald, The disappearance of the Teenage Genius and the Alien Autopsy, according to his website


And if the above wasn't enough let's not forget OJ's suicide ride in the white bronco. The alleged confession to the now Rev Rosi Greer who met with OJ during the first night of lock up. (and others who heard OJ crying out he killed her). OJ had confessed to the crime until his lawyers got some sense into him.

I was fancisnated by the case and did a lot reading about it. I believe OJ did it.

doubled99: olddinosaur Smartest
Funniest
2012-04-02 12:24:37 PM


Sorry, no cookie.

In order for the son to have done it, he would have had to get Daddy's car, smear it with blood, break into the house and leave bloody socks, and stash a bloody glove behind the house.
No chance of that.

A murderer will give himself away in tiny ways, and in this case O.J. asked the limo driver what time it was---when he already knew---and he also said he did not hear the door bell because he was:

1. Chipping golf balls;
2. In the shower;
3. Taking a nap.

An innocent man would not have had a reason to lie over something so trivial, it is the timy details which prove O.J.'s guilt.



Actually, IF OJ were trying to cover it up after the fact, it would explain all of that.

You can still have a cookie, though

According to the investigator, the son called OJ after the attack and said he had done something terrible. Then OJ went to the house to see what had actually happened, Finding two dead bodies, he supposedly left.

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE (new window)

From my understanding, contamination of the DNA would only have served to exculpate Simpson, not include him in the very small pool of possible matches. My only question here is: how closely do these genetic markers go from father to son? Obviously there are some similarities, because we can establish paternity by DNA testing, but is it possible that Jason's DNA is similar enough to his father's to be mistaken for it on a DNA test?

acefox1: 101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE (new window)

circumstantial at best. And much of the things that you think ties OJ to the attack (like the dog not attacking him) also applies to the son of OJ.

DJAkeeba: From my understanding, contamination of the DNA would only have served to exculpate Simpson, not include him in the very small pool of possible matches. My only question here is: how closely do these genetic markers go from father to son? Obviously there are some similarities, because we can establish paternity by DNA testing, but is it possible that Jason's DNA is similar enough to his father's to be mistaken for it on a DNA test?

from what I have read, the answer is yes.

acefox1: 101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE (new window)

67. Simpson writes a suicide note that is read after his escape from arrest on June 17, 1994. The note is written from pal Robert Kardashian's house on June 15- and reeks of guilt.

Case closed.

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?

The day that she was killed OJ's youngest daughter had a dance recital. Jason had reserved a section at the restaurant he worked at and made a meal for the family for after the recital. Nicole completely blew off his dinner and took her daughter and her family to a different restaurant. People said that this completely pissed Jason off, and along with other issues he had with Nicole sent him over the edge.

I always thought that this is what happened, but the Colombian drug dealer angle was also interesting. If you look at it her best friend was hiding out from drug dealers that she owed money to. Then a few weeks before Nicole was killed a male friend of hers was murdered and police suspected it was over drugs. Then a few months after Nicole was killed another male friend of hers was murdered and that was also suspected to be over drugs. So I don't know if she was involved with dealing, but a lot of people around her apparently were.

msirois: DamnYankees: 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

Sorry, but the main fark up was 100% the cops. The tried to frame a guilty person. This made is pretty easy for the defense to prove reaonable doubt. Planting evidence and lying etc etc that kiled the OJ case

This.
When the lead detective on the case can't testify and takes the Fifth on the stand, your case is in trouble.

corn-bread: If in fact OJ didn't do it, someone very close to him who had access to his house and who is genetically similar / related to him could still fit with much of the physical evidence.

Doesn't really matter though, they had his blood DNA at the scene. If this trial were held post 2002, he would be doing time for murder rather than aggravated burglary.

The DNA in the case was never proven to be specifically OJ's. The prosecution said that the DNA was either OJ's or a close male family member. Back then DNA wasn't completely mapped out so you couldn't say the with certainty that DNA belonged to a specific person. They could only say then that the DNA belonged to someone in a person's blood line.

DJAkeeba: From my understanding, contamination of the DNA would only have served to exculpate Simpson, not include him in the very small pool of possible matches. My only question here is: how closely do these genetic markers go from father to son? Obviously there are some similarities, because we can establish paternity by DNA testing, but is it possible that Jason's DNA is similar enough to his father's to be mistaken for it on a DNA test?

You have to realize the date of the case... In the mid 90's DNA mapping wasn't what it is now. In fact, what you might think it is now probably isn't the case either (last i heard they were only about 20% complete on mapping the human genome).

Back then they needed larger amounts of pure evidence because they weren't able to synthesize the DNA they collected like they can now.

Add to the fact that the LAPD tampered with the DNA evidence and you have a HUGE margin for error.

The DNA technology back then was still in its infancy, and while we've come a long way since then, it won't be 100% until the human genome is completely mapped. As it is, they use an "anomaly" method to ID someone via DNA. It's good enough for the courts now, but 20 years from now, it will be seen as archaic, 50 years from now it will be seen as laughable...

Bathia_Mapes: buckler: Bathia_Mapes: buckler: I can only hope that O.J. has stood by his oath to find the real killer after all these years.

Kind of hard to do that from a prison cell.

Oh, yeah! I forgot about that whole "sports memorabilia" thing.

Yep, he's currently in Lovelock Correctional Center (Nevada). He was given a 33 year sentence and has to serve a minimum of 9 years before a possibility of parole.

White folks' wrath is a terrible thing.

/conventional wisdom is still he's not in there for the theft, he's in there for Ron and Nicole
//a LOT of people said Jason did it
///It really is all about the cap with the hair in it
/I still like the Columbian drug lord theory as back up cuz of Faye Resnick's skank ass

My verdict: O.J. was framed for a crime he did commit.

/Didn't really check too much of the evidence. YMMV.

has any one posted this link yet?

It's a very interesting read on how/why Jason did it...

Link (new window)

HiFiGuy: My verdict: O.J. was framed for a crime he did commit.
/Didn't really check too much of the evidence. YMMV.

He was, and that's why he wasn't convicted. About the verdict, all I can say is, "I'm not saying it was right, but I understand."

And don't bother being all clever and quoting Chris Rock back at me. She wasn't his WIFE, and he was stalking and terrorizing her. If you think there's one thing understandable about a man killing his ex-wife, you should probably be given a long vacation away from the human race.

DamnYankees: olddinosaur: An innocent man would not have had a reason to lie over something so trivial, it is the timy details which prove O.J.'s guilt.

Bill James has a great anecdote about this in his book. I'll paraphrase.

There was some suspect the cops were very convinced was guilty of a series of grisly murders. They interviewed him and he had alibis and everything, but all the evidence pointed towards him. They brought in multiple psychologists who all said he was totally sane, there was nothing weird about him, and no reason to believe he had psychotic tendencies. Unconvinced, the cops brought in one more guy, a psychology professor from an Ivy League school I believe. After five minutes with the suspect, the professor walks out and says "I'm 100% convinced - he's a schizophrenic." How could he possible have known that? He asked him one question:

"When you walk down the street, do you ever think you hear someone calling your name, and then realize no one did?"

You can probably guess the rest. The guy reacted with a violent and definitive "No". In reality, of course, this happens to everyone. We all hear our name called when no one says it, that's just how the brain works. So why would anyone deny it? Because he knew he heard voices in his head, he knew he was schizophrenic, and he also knew he needed to deny it to come off as sane and innocent. But he lied about this one incredibly minor thing no one else would ever have any reason to lie about, and it gave him up.

Interesting stuff.

What a stupid anecdote. Any psychologist worth his salt would have also realized that in an adversarial interview, the defendant is going to be reading the subtext of the question just as much as the text, and would be fully aware that he was on a multiple attempt at being framed as a psychopath. Opining that a statement that one is not insane when asked if one is, is prima facie evidence of insanity? That's just Kafkeque. That's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose questioning.

More literally, most people don't hear an imaginary voice calling their name. More typically, people either pick their name being said out of the background noise, but it's not them being addressed, or they respond to something natural in the background which just sounds like their name -- sort of like dog butt hair that looks like Jesus.

If OJ was covering for his son, then pretty much all the evidence against OJ can be explained away.

I'm not saying Jason did it.

JackieRabbit: The LAPD and the district attorney couldn't build a convincing case against O.J. None of their evidence added up. They didn't just bungle the case against O.J.; they bungled the case completely from the start.

Yes, the prosecution botched the case. But in fairness, there was a great deal of damning evidence that the jury didn't or wasn't allowed to hear. For instance:

OJ purchased a knife from Ross Cutlery a week before the murders. This particular type of knife precisely matched the victim's wounds. However, the store owner sold his story to the tabloids before testifying, so his testimony was excluded.

Nicole's neighbor, Jill Shively, observed OJ agitated and racing away from Nicole's residence around the time it was established she and Goldman were killed. Shively also sold her story before testifying and her testimony was likewise excluded.

A witness observed OJ trashing the contents of a bag (one the limo driver and Kato said OJ had been particularly guarding) at the Chicago airport. The witness was actually a defense witness to establish OJ was in Chicago. He was never called to testify.

Police found a lengthy document written by OJ at his business office articulating his abuse of Nicole. OJ's attorneys insisted the police couldn't have it. The cops obtained a warrant, then returned for the document, to learn it had been destroyed in the meantime.

OJ denied he owned the unusual Bruno Magli shoes contaminated with the victims' blood. The proof he did own the shoes was never entered.

OJ denied he owned the unusual Aris Isotoner gloves contaminated with the victims' blood. The proof he did own the gloves was never entered.

The police interview tapes showing OJ being evasive, inconsistent and flat-out lying were never entered.

Simpson's suicide note was never entered.

The fact that Nicole's missing set of house keys was found at OJ's residence was never entered.

The fact that OJ had of a large sum of money, was packed for travel, had a disguise, a gun, and his passport during the infamous low-speed chase was never entered.

Would any or all of this have made a difference? I think probably not, as I've said I believe this particular jury was determined to acquit OJ as an act of jury nullification in response to the acquittal of LAPD officers who were filmed allowing their colleagues to brutally beat Rodney King.

chuckufarlie

You obviously have no idea about familial DNA matches.

Well I don't have a degree in biology, but my understanding is that of the allele markers, you will get some that match, so you can show that the blood was from someone related to the person you're trying to match to. You do not get a "one in a hundred thousand" match, because their DNA - unless they are identical twins - isn't that close.

Instead of blindly accepting what you heard on TV newscasts, maybe you could be open minded enough to do a little research on your own - or read the book of a qualified investigator who did do some research

I've got a row of seven books on my shelf about this case. Bugliosi's was far and away the best (of the ones I read, anyway). Darden's was entertaining.

As for research, how about this:
Forensic Genetics: Historical Crime Case Study. DNA and the OJ Simpson Murder Trial

First, let's note that there wasn't a "tiny amount" of blood in the Bronco. Samples were collected from the steering wheel, the center console, the dashboard, and the carpet. In fact, there was blood in ten separate places
OJ Simpson Trial - The Incriminating Evidence

Let's see if we're looking at a familial match, shall we?

Blood collected at the crime scene near the victims was a 1 in 240,000 match to OJ Simpson.

Rather high, eh?

The gloves that has the blood of both victims on them - Aris Light, purchased by Nicole, there are pictures of OJ wearing them from 1990-1994.

The size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, quite rare, that left bloody shoeprints at the scene. There are pictures of OJ wearing them. Are you saying Jason had the same shoes, or he stole his father's shoes to wear to the scene?

The cuts on Simpson's hand were from the water glass he broke - coincidence, right? The limo driver pulled up and the Bronco wasn't on the side of the house. Minutes later he sees someone of OJ's size enter the house. There is all kinds of evidence at OJs house - the second glove, the bloody socks, blood in the vehicle. But there is no evidence anywhere near Jason. None. Zero.

Are you also claiming that the LAPD was somehow fooled in to thinking he had an airtight alibi, too?

lohphat: I personally have a problem with civil trials for criminal actions. It makes a farce of criminal law. Murder should not be handled by civil courts.

A crime is an act against the state and the public. A tort is an act against an individual. So there isn't a civil trial for a crime. Thus, the Goldmans didn't sue OJ for murder (an impossibility) they sued him for wrongful death (a tort).

Even if I see someone kill my spouse, I'm merely a state witness, not a party or a victim. The state is the party, the public is the victim, and prosecutors act on behalf of them, not me. That's why I don't sit at the table with the prosecution the way the defendant sits with his lawyers. That's also why it's not up to me whether plea deals are tendered or withdrawn, or what kind of sentence is pursued.

When I sue the killer for wrongful death in civil court, I'm a party and a victim.

Why would you object to me vindicating my own interests in court?

chuckufarlie: circumstantial at best.

Yes, OJ's blood all over the crime scene, fresh cuts on his hands and the victims blood found in his vehicle and on clothing in his home is circumstantial.

You sound black.

9beers: chuckufarlie: circumstantial at best.

Yes, OJ's blood all over the crime scene, fresh cuts on his hands and the victims blood found in his vehicle and on clothing in his home is circumstantial.

You sound black.

you sound like a racist. I am most certainly Caucasian. He had an explanation for the cuts. The investigator has an explanation for the blood. Also, the blood found on the scene that was OJs had been tampered with.

Seriously, don't you ever READ?

MisterRonbo: chuckufarlie

You obviously have no idea about familial DNA matches.

Well I don't have a degree in biology, but my understanding is that of the allele markers, you will get some that match, so you can show that the blood was from someone related to the person you're trying to match to. You do not get a "one in a hundred thousand" match, because their DNA - unless they are identical twins - isn't that close.

Instead of blindly accepting what you heard on TV newscasts, maybe you could be open minded enough to do a little research on your own - or read the book of a qualified investigator who did do some research

I've got a row of seven books on my shelf about this case. Bugliosi's was far and away the best (of the ones I read, anyway). Darden's was entertaining.

As for research, how about this:
Forensic Genetics: Historical Crime Case Study. DNA and the OJ Simpson Murder Trial

First, let's note that there wasn't a "tiny amount" of blood in the Bronco. Samples were collected from the steering wheel, the center console, the dashboard, and the carpet. In fact, there was blood in ten separate places
OJ Simpson Trial - The Incriminating Evidence

Let's see if we're looking at a familial match, shall we?

Blood collected at the crime scene near the victims was a 1 in 240,000 match to OJ Simpson.

Rather high, eh?

The gloves that has the blood of both victims on them - Aris Light, purchased by Nicole, there are pictures of OJ wearing them from 1990-1994.

The size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, quite rare, that left bloody shoeprints at the scene. There are pictures of OJ wearing them. Are you saying Jason had the same shoes, or he stole his father's shoes to wear to the scene?

The cuts on Simpson's hand were from the water glass he broke - coincidence, right? The limo driver pulled up and the Bronco wasn't on the side of the house. Minutes later he sees someone of OJ's size enter the house. There is all kinds of evidence at OJs house - the second glove, the bloody socks ...

The the read book mentioned in the article. You have read several books that all believe that OJ did it. You should read at least one book that claims that he did not. Otherwise, you cannot come to an intelligent, independent conclusion. You are just parroting what you read.

Open minded, rational people are very rare on Fark.

chuckufarlie: He had an explanation for the cuts. The investigator has an explanation for the blood. Also, the blood found on the scene that was OJs had been tampered with.

His explanation for the cuts to the back of his fingers was that he broke a glass he was holdng when hearing that Nichole had been killed. How the fark do you get cuts on the back of your fingers from breaking a glass you're holding? Also, no blood was found on the broken glass.

No blood was tampered with, so stop spouting the same farking lies OJ's attorney's used. Let me guess, it must have been that racist, Mark Furhman that planted all that blood, right?

If you honestly think that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict OJ, you're so far beyond dumb that I don't want to insult dumb people by calling you dumb.

Speaking of racists, it was racist black jurors that found OJ innocent, bottom line.

This guy is screaming "I have evidence". If the cops and prosecutors believe any of this evidence, there would be a court case. As best I can tell there isn't a court case - just some guy trying to sell his book and his movie.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I STILL don't know who killed Ron and Nicole.

Then you're being willfully ignorant of the facts. To believe that OJ is innocent, you have to either assume that somebody set him up by spreading blood all over the place or believe that multiple lab tests were forged. Basically, you have to buy into the same bullshiat that a good portion of the black population bought into. OJ's acquittal was about one thing, racism by the blacks on the jury.

Mugato: DamnYankees: JackieRabbit: he constitution prevents a citizen, who has been found not guilty of a crime, from being retried for that crime, using the same evidence. However, if a citizen is acquitted of a crime and new evidence is found to implicate him, he can be re-arrested and tried for the crime, but only using the new evidence.

Ok, this must be some elaborate piece of performance art.

I thought it was an elaborate way of creating an Ashley Judd thread.

[www.startrek.com image 320x320]

Your neutrinos are drifting...

chuckufarlie

You have read several books that all believe that OJ did it. You should read at least one book that claims that he did not.

Until this book, there were none that claimed he didn't do it. Now why would that be?

I read Kardashian's book (awful, btw), and he came to reluctantly conclude OJ was guilty. OJs own book (which I did not read) didn't even try to claim he didn't commit the crime.

Who had a history of beating her up? Who had threatened to kill her? Whose vehicle had the victims' blood in it? Whose blood was found at the crime scene? Whose vehicle was seen speeding away a few blocks from the scene, at the time of the murder? The socks in OJs bedroom that contained both victims blood. The rare gloves, the even more rare shoes. How do you explain these away?

Meanwhile, let's look at Jason as a suspect. He had a girlfriend, the same one for five years. By all accounts he had a friendly relationship with Nicole. He was at work at Jackson's until closing (about 11 pm IIRC) and went straight home, his girlfriend confirmed that. There wasn't time for him to commit those murders. That's why the police eliminated him as a suspect.

The evidence for him as a killer? There was a knife in a storage unit that is consistent with the wounds. Pretty weak. I'd bet there are four or five knives in my home that would qualify too. The 1 in 250,000 blood match for OJ next to the bodies you think is somehow a familial match? From what I've read, familial matches are two to three orders of magnitude lower (i.e. one in hundreds or one in thousands, not one in hundreds of thousands).

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: You don't know that. And you KNOW that you don't know that.

Blacks were literally dancing in the streets when OJ was acquitted, those were I worked were running around high-fiving each other. I know exactly why OJ was acquitted. It was about all the frustrations blacks have with their belief that the man is out to keep them down and acquitting OJ was a way to show everybody that they could win for once.