Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-09-2018, 12:25 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,123
OJ sorta confesses (again)

Fox on Sunday is airing a two-hour special, OJ: The Lost Confession.

a repackaged version of a never-aired 2006 interview with publisher Judith Regan, in which he details a "hypothetical" explanation for the murders of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in 1994. ......

Quote:
An unedited portion of the special ó which also features a panel discussion with Regan and legal experts, including prosecutor Christopher Darden ó was screened for journalists Thursday, including roughly 45 minutes of the interview. Simpson, who was acquitted of the grisly double homicide, is jocular and easygoing throughout most of his session, laughing as he recalls how Brown badgered him to get married and recounting his attempts to "get some" (from her and other women) after they had split.

He even plays the sympathy card for an incident in 1989, when he was convicted of spousal abuse after beating Brown so severely that she required hospital treatment.

"The one thing that hurts me as much as anything in this ó aside from being considered a murderer ó is being a batterer," Simpson says. "Somehow, I came out of all of that because of that night as the poster boy of an abuser."
Rough, isn't it, OJ? You beat your wife up, put her in hospital, and then they call you the bad guy? Unbelievable!

OJ goes on to talk about how he and some guy called Charlie (probably not real) were at the murder scene, how he confronted Nicole and her boyfriend, blacked out and came to over the dead bodies with blood everywhere.

Some things in this world I'm unsure of but of this I am certain: OJ is a killer and a complete narcissist.
  #2  
Old 03-09-2018, 01:10 PM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
...OJ goes on to talk about how he and some guy called Charlie (probably not real) were at the murder scene, how he confronted Nicole and her boyfriend, blacked out and came to over the dead bodies with blood everywhere.

Some things in this world I'm unsure of but of this I am certain: OJ is a killer and a complete narcissist.
He's a real piece of shit, isn't he? Poor me, the wife-beater.

That said, if you haven't looked at the theory that his kid, Jason Simpson, did the murders, you might find it interesting. Even if the main proponent, per the Telegraph, is a nutjob who, among other things, claims there was a second shooter at JFK, and he not only knows who, but has the bullet.

I still think OJ was there at some point during the proceedings, if only to try and clean up the scene, but I'm not as positive now as I was 20 years ago that he did it.

Thanks for the link.
  #3  
Old 03-09-2018, 01:21 PM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 13,607
I think he did it. And I think part of him needs to tell. How he beat a murder charge. Maybe he even thinks itís his ticket back to public renown, fame and fortune.

I think before he goes to his grave, heíll probably confess.
  #4  
Old 03-09-2018, 01:22 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 15,819
Why is this irredemable piece of shit given the time of day? I was SO hoping he'd get whacked in prison, but noooooooooooo!
__________________
OTTAWA spelled backward is AWATTO!
  #5  
Old 03-09-2018, 01:30 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 13,446
I watched every minute of the trial that was televised (I was unemployed at the time), and I'm positive he did it. Not one molecule of doubt. He is scum.
  #6  
Old 03-09-2018, 01:47 PM
That Don Guy That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,056
I am under the impression that the "confession" is pretty much what he wrote in If I Did It, Here's What Happened - er, after Fred Goldman got the rights to the book as part of the settlement, it was retitled If I Did It: Confessions of a Killer. (On the cover, "If" appears inside of the "I" and is so small and colored so closely to the I that you have a hard time seeing it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
OJ goes on to talk about how he and some guy called Charlie (probably not real) were at the murder scene, how he confronted Nicole and her boyfriend, blacked out and came to over the dead bodies with blood everywhere.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there really was a "Charlie." Remember, not only was OJ not alone in the Vegas "robbery" that got him into prison, but his accomplices were the only ones with guns.

Another thing I remember about the book; when somebody asked Goldman how Simpson was supposed to raise 32 million dollars, he replied, "He can write another book" - and when Simpson does, Goldman throws a fit. What did he expect him to write about?
  #7  
Old 03-09-2018, 06:00 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
He's a real piece of shit, isn't he? Poor me, the wife-beater.

That said, if you haven't looked at the theory that his kid, Jason Simpson, did the murders, you might find it interesting. Even if the main proponent, per the Telegraph, is a nutjob who, among other things, claims there was a second shooter at JFK, and he not only knows who, but has the bullet.

I still think OJ was there at some point during the proceedings, if only to try and clean up the scene, but I'm not as positive now as I was 20 years ago that he did it.

Thanks for the link.
This is absurd. The evidence that OJ did it is pretty overwhelming. Just off the top of my head:

He can't account for where he was during the time the crime occurred;

Shoe prints matching his shoe size and type were found at the scene;

Blood from the scene was found on his clothes;

A glove from the scene was found outside his home;

He was seen by at least one person driving erratically away from the scene;

He was late being picked up by a limo driver around the time of the murders, and behaved erratically when he did show up;

He had a deep cut on his hand when he was interviewed by police a few days later;

Some of his hairs were found in the knit cap left at the scene, which presumably was worn by the killer;

A prison guard heard OJ confess to Rosie Grier when he was visiting OJ in jail...

And then there's something about a DNA match (one of the biggest things missed in the trial is that, if the DNA analysis is done via a tainted sample, it won't produce any match, as opposed to a false positive).

Last edited by Moriarty; 03-09-2018 at 06:00 PM.
  #8  
Old 03-09-2018, 06:34 PM
TBG TBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 8,913
Frankly, I never want to hear any more about this piece of shit until he's six feet under, and even then no more than a simple notice of that occurring.
  #9  
Old 03-09-2018, 06:41 PM
zbuzz zbuzz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there really was a "Charlie." Remember, not only was OJ not alone in the Vegas "robbery" that got him into prison, but his accomplices were the only ones with guns.
Even considering there was no credible evidence at the murder scene leading to a second suspect and "Charlie" sounds like a completely transparent invention on OJs part intended to lessen the psychological load of what he knows everyone else knows he did?
  #10  
Old 03-09-2018, 07:36 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,613
I'm pretty sure he didn't do it. Why is everyone always giving OJ such a hard time?
  #11  
Old 03-09-2018, 07:47 PM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 15,819
I loved the way Vincent Bugliosi blasted the incompetent prosecution team and judge in his Playboy articles and elsewhere. Had been prosecuting the case, no way Simpson would have walked out of that courtroom a free man.

That's assuming we live in a rational world, of course. When you have a jury whose collective IQ is that of a peanut, anything is possible.
__________________
OTTAWA spelled backward is AWATTO!
  #12  
Old 03-09-2018, 08:27 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 13,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by terentii View Post
I loved the way Vincent Bugliosi blasted the incompetent prosecution team and judge in his Playboy articles and elsewhere. Had been prosecuting the case, no way Simpson would have walked out of that courtroom a free man.

That's assuming we live in a rational world, of course. When you have a jury whose collective IQ is that of a peanut, anything is possible.
It wasn't that they were stupid. A lot of the evidence was kept from the jury. Here's a good summary. It will blow your mind how much the TV audience knew that the jury never knew.

Here's another good discussion.
  #13  
Old 03-09-2018, 10:48 PM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
This is absurd. The evidence that OJ did it is pretty overwhelming. Just off the top of my head:

He can't account for where he was during the time the crime occurred;

Shoe prints matching his shoe size and type were found at the scene;

Blood from the scene was found on his clothes;

A glove from the scene was found outside his home;

He was seen by at least one person driving erratically away from the scene;

He was late being picked up by a limo driver around the time of the murders, and behaved erratically when he did show up;

He had a deep cut on his hand when he was interviewed by police a few days later;

Some of his hairs were found in the knit cap left at the scene, which presumably was worn by the killer;

A prison guard heard OJ confess to Rosie Grier when he was visiting OJ in jail...

And then there's something about a DNA match (one of the biggest things missed in the trial is that, if the DNA analysis is done via a tainted sample, it won't produce any match, as opposed to a false positive).
The vast majority of the evidence you cite, is also explained by him being there immediately afterwards, and fighting with his kid. I'm not saying at all that he wasn't there, or had nothing to do with it. I'm just saying that I think there's a non-trivial possibility his kid may have been the one to actually kill them, and that Dad was on the scene either at the same time, or pretty soon afterwards. A 6'4" schizophrenic professional chef with a history of violence, and a documented hatred of Nicole Brown, had a lot of motive to do the killing too, and enough physical power and knife skills to account for the wounds and the disposition of the bodies.

The confession is a biggie though, if true. Hard to see why OJ would confess to Rosie if he didn't do it.

And I'm not familiar with exactly how close his DNA matched the samples from the scene. Other than he was definitely there. Would his masculine child have a close enough set of alleles to match the samples, or were the samples good enough to definitely exclude Jason Simpson? Did Jason's blood match any of the other blood samples at the scene? Did anyone check? As I remember it, though I've not read the guy's book, Jason wasn't definitively excluded as a suspect. Mainly because there was just so damn much evidence pointing to O.J.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
  #14  
Old 03-09-2018, 10:52 PM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
It wasn't that they were stupid. A lot of the evidence was kept from the jury. Here's a good summary. It will blow your mind how much the TV audience knew that the jury never knew.

Here's another good discussion.
Garcetti lost that case in venue selection. Try it near Brentwood, and the Juice is still in jail. Mike Kinsley, at the time, had a pretty good article in either Slate or Harpers, talking about capital punishment and how O.J. never had a shot at seeing the (at the time) gas chamber.

Were the stories ever proven that members of the jury were going to throw O.J. and his defense team a party after the trial? There were a few rumors about such a thing in local (S.F.) talk radio around the time of the trial.

My minor touch with this case is dealing with Robert Kardashian while the chase was going on.

Last edited by Gray Ghost; 03-09-2018 at 10:54 PM.
  #15  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:54 AM
zbuzz zbuzz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
A 6'4" schizophrenic professional chef with a history of violence, and a documented hatred of Nicole Brown, had a lot of motive to do the killing too, and enough physical power and knife skills to account for the wounds and the disposition of the bodies.
You realize you could say almost the exact same thing about OJ, right? 6'2" OJ with a documented history of violence against Nicole, motivated by jealously, physically powerful. And unless the LAPD considers every nearby chef a suspect whenever there is a stabbing, why would Jason and his chef "knife skills" even begin to enter into the picture?

That and, you know, no evidence whatsoever of Jason being there.
  #16  
Old 03-10-2018, 04:40 AM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,847
One thing that has always bugged me about the crime scene is the bloody pronated footprints leading away from the gate. OJ's feet, like most athletes I believe, point straight ahead when he walks or runs (Cite, Cite, Cite), but most of the footprints I saw were pronated. Cite

Also, one would think that after such horrendous wounding of both Nicole and Ron Goldman, OJ would have been covered head to toe in blood and the interior of his car would be too. Yet there were only small smudges of it here and there on the headliner, the back of the headrests and so forth...at least that's all there were before more was planted some three weeks after the car reached the impoundment lot. The blood stains I saw in the car looked more like something that could have been left by the police feeling around inside the car after having left the crime scene where they got blood on vinyl gloves they hadn't taken off in their haste to get to OJ's place.

Also, OJ didn't have a deep wound to his hand, it was only a small cut over one knuckle. Cite

I've felt it possible ever since the crimes were committed that OJ was covering for someone, and very possibly his son. Either that or a friend who got carried away in his support of OJ. IIRC, the police theory was that Nicole was killed first and then Goldman, who arrived about the same time or shortly after. In my mind it's possible (and I reiterate, 'possible', as opposed to likely) that Ron Goldman came up first and either confronted them or was confronted by them and whoever was with OJ killed him and then Nicole when she came out to see what was going on.

But the biggest thing to me is simply the lack of huge amounts of blood in OJ's car. No evidence was uncovered at the scene to indicate he disrobed before getting into his car, an action which I would think would have left large telltale bloody smudges on the sidewalk or wherever he took his clothes off before getting into his car, and even then he'd still have lots of wet blood on his hands. Why wasn't the steering wheel and gear shift covered in blood then? Plus, OJ was dressed when the driver who had arrived to take him to the airport watched him walk from where he parked his car to his front door.

So long story short, I think OJ was there but not the killer. Maybe his son, maybe a friend, maybe a hired thug who got carried away or attacked by Goldman, who knows? But it just doesn't add up to me that OJ did the actual killings.

Last edited by Starving Artist; 03-10-2018 at 04:42 AM.
  #17  
Old 03-10-2018, 04:51 AM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,847
I should also say that on the other hand, it's hard to figure a motive other than guilt for the slow speed Bronco chase and/or for the money and disguise he had with him at the time, or for the letter he wrote that Robert Kardashian read.

So who knows? It's a perplexion.

Last edited by Starving Artist; 03-10-2018 at 04:54 AM.
  #18  
Old 03-10-2018, 07:48 AM
Mean Mr. Mustard's Avatar
Mean Mr. Mustard Mean Mr. Mustard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,902
For those who are 100% certain of his guilt I can only say that there are relatively few things about which I would make that claim; particularly about an event in which every scrap of my knowledge has come from the media.

That said, I think he did it too.

Has there ever been an explanation of why the famous glove did not fit?


mmm

Last edited by Mean Mr. Mustard; 03-10-2018 at 07:49 AM.
  #19  
Old 03-10-2018, 07:59 AM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard View Post
Has there ever been an explanation of why the famous glove did not fit?
Because he was already wearing a latex glove when he tried it on. Should have been perfectly obvious to the Prosecution idiots before they asked him to do it.

Same reason the bra didn't fit Sue Ellen Mischke when she tried it on---she was already wearing a pullover.
__________________
OTTAWA spelled backward is AWATTO!
  #20  
Old 03-10-2018, 08:02 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 13,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard View Post
...
Has there ever been an explanation of why the famous glove did not fit?
...
Give. Me. A. Break.

To answer your question: yes, there have been plenty of explanations.

I watched that scene live on TV. I saw him "pretend" the glove didn't fit. He scrunched up his hand into a fist and then mock-struggled to get his hand into it. Also, O.J. had on a LATEX glove when he pretended to try to pull the glove on. The glove had been soaked in blood and then frozen and unfrozen several times. Have you ever tried to put on a leather glove that has been soaked in, say, melted snow, and then dried? Another theory was that O.J. took arthritis medication and had been off it, so his hands were swollen. There are many perfectly credible explanations.

And then grandstander Johnny Cochran created the "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!" nursery rhyme. Lance Ito, the judge, loved being an instant celebrity and played to the cameras. Geez, the whole thing was a fucking circus.

O.J. did it. No question.

[Partially ninja'd.]

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 03-10-2018 at 08:03 AM.
  #21  
Old 03-10-2018, 08:09 AM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
...A 6'4" schizophrenic professional chef with a history of violence, and a documented hatred of Nicole Brown, had a lot of motive to do the killing too, and enough physical power and knife skills to account for the wounds and the disposition of the bodies.
Here is a take down of the ďson did itĒ theory. One thing you are not accounting for is the timeline necessary for Jason to have murdered these people and then called his dad to come over and help. It doesnít add up.

Quote:
The confession is a biggie though, if true. Hard to see why OJ would confess to Rosie if he didn't do it.
His testimony was withheld on the basis of a priestly confidentiality privelege, not because it didnít happen.

Quote:
And I'm not familiar with exactly how close his DNA matched the samples from the scene. Other than he was definitely there. Would his masculine child have a close enough set of alleles to match the samples, or were the samples good enough to definitely exclude Jason Simpson? Did Jason's blood match any of the other blood samples at the scene? Did anyone check?
There was a DNA match for O.J. at the scene. The only person who would have had the same match would have been a twin, which he doesnít have. And only 3 peopleís blood was found - that of the victims and of the senior Simpson. There wasnít unaccounted for blood to identify.
  #22  
Old 03-10-2018, 08:18 AM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
One thing that has always bugged me about the crime scene is the bloody pronated footprints leading away from the gate.
He was backing away before turning, perhaps. If the footprints are awkward for an athlete, they are awkward for anybody.

Quote:
would think that after such horrendous wounding of both Nicole and Ron Goldman, OJ would have been covered head to toe in blood and the interior of his car would be too.
Both victims were killed from behind. The blood spilled in front of them. He didnít need to be covered in blood.

Quote:
Also, OJ didn't have a deep wound to his hand, it was only a small cut over one knuckle. Cite
The point remains that he had a fresh cut on his hand, and he was uncertain about its origin when police first asked him about it.
  #23  
Old 03-10-2018, 08:18 AM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 48,217
John Douglas of the FBI serial killer unitshas a great explanation for how OJ couild not have been framed by the police: At the time the police did not know where he was. He could have been giving a speech in front of thousands of people or one a plane or in Las Vegas. Yet 4 cops decided to frame him

OJ did it, and I will do my Happy Dance when I hear he's dead.

Last edited by Annie-Xmas; 03-10-2018 at 08:18 AM.
  #24  
Old 03-10-2018, 08:27 AM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
His testimony was withheld on the basis of a priestly confidentiality privelege, not because it didnít happen.
This is a better contemporary account of the controversy surrounding Simpsonís jailhouse discussion with Grier. Grier was there in his role as a religious counselor, but a guard apparently overheard their private conversation when O.J. yelled out a confession, purportedly saying ďI did it.Ē
  #25  
Old 03-10-2018, 09:41 AM
notfrommensa notfrommensa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
This is absurd. The evidence that OJ did it is pretty overwhelming. Just off the top of my head:

He can't account for where he was during the time the crime occurred;

Shoe prints matching his shoe size and type were found at the scene;

Blood from the scene was found on his clothes;

A glove from the scene was found outside his home;

He was seen by at least one person driving erratically away from the scene;

He was late being picked up by a limo driver around the time of the murders, and behaved erratically when he did show up;

He had a deep cut on his hand when he was interviewed by police a few days later;

Some of his hairs were found in the knit cap left at the scene, which presumably was worn by the killer;

A prison guard heard OJ confess to Rosie Grier when he was visiting OJ in jail...

And then there's something about a DNA match (one of the biggest things missed in the trial is that, if the DNA analysis is done via a tainted sample, it won't produce any match, as opposed to a false positive).

FWIW, I think OJ is guilty. But most of the bullets points were known to LAPD a day or two after the murders. Yet OJ was arrested until 5 days after the murder. Yes he was OJ Simpson, but in the view of the LAPD, he was a double murderer, on the loose.
__________________
notfrommensa is clearly awesome - oslo ostragoth
  #26  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:15 AM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 23,907
OJ was trying to make money (over a decade ago) and he wrote a book and did an interview. I wouldn't take seriously anything he said. He's naturally going to say practically anything to get attention.

Goldman put an end it too it long ago. Seized ownership rights and left OJ with nothing.

Now they drag it out again. To make a buck.

This time for those low life, ratings hungry journalists and tv producers. Who have no qualms at exploiting a murdered woman.

I've scrapped stuff off the bottom of my shoe that I respect more than these scumbags.

Last edited by aceplace57; 03-10-2018 at 10:19 AM.
  #27  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:48 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
...Goldman put an end it too it long ago. Seized ownership rights and left OJ with nothing...
Well, not really nothing. Simpson has all kinds of retirement income that's protected from civil suits.
  #28  
Old 03-10-2018, 11:08 AM
Mean Mr. Mustard's Avatar
Mean Mr. Mustard Mean Mr. Mustard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
...I saw him "pretend" the glove didn't fit...O.J. did it. No question.
I you are so certain, why is 'pretend' in quotation marks?


mmm
  #29  
Old 03-10-2018, 11:28 AM
terentii terentii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Moscow/Toronto
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard View Post
I you are so certain, why is 'pretend' in quotation marks?
If you were watching when it happened, it was obvious what a farce it was.
__________________
OTTAWA spelled backward is AWATTO!
  #30  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:26 PM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Here is a take down of the ďson did itĒ theory. One thing you are not accounting for is the timeline necessary for Jason to have murdered these people and then called his dad to come over and help. It doesnít add up.


His testimony was withheld on the basis of a priestly confidentiality privelege, not because it didnít happen.


There was a DNA match for O.J. at the scene. The only person who would have had the same match would have been a twin, which he doesnít have. And only 3 peopleís blood was found - that of the victims and of the senior Simpson. There wasnít unaccounted for blood to identify.
That's what I was looking for, thanks. Great answers to my questions. Didn't know if a son would be a close enough match, but if no, and the only blood there is those three, then that's good enough for me.

"Spiritual adviser?" LOL. It's good to have money.
  #31  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:34 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
I think he did it. And I think part of him needs to tell.
I like this theory. Aren't there quite a few killers that feel the need to confess about their crime or at least leave enough clues to get caught?
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #32  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:42 PM
JackieLikesVariety's Avatar
JackieLikesVariety JackieLikesVariety is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,570
this right here

Quote:
Another theory was that O.J. took arthritis medication and had been off it, so his hands were swollen.
O.J. was on regular prescription meds and he stopped them for 2 day so the joints in his hands became swollen.
  #33  
Old 03-10-2018, 04:36 PM
Mean Mr. Mustard's Avatar
Mean Mr. Mustard Mean Mr. Mustard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard View Post
I you are so certain, why is 'pretend' in quotation marks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by terentii View Post
If you were watching when it happened, it was obvious what a farce it was.
Which is why I don't understand why he was "pretending" as opposed to pretending.

And if his hands were swollen, as many say, he wouldn't have had to pretend at all.


mmm

Last edited by Mean Mr. Mustard; 03-10-2018 at 04:37 PM.
  #34  
Old 03-10-2018, 05:15 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
He was backing away before turning, perhaps. If the footprints are awkward for an athlete, they are awkward for anybody.


Both victims were killed from behind. The blood spilled in front of them. He didnít need to be covered in blood.


The point remains that he had a fresh cut on his hand, and he was uncertain about its origin when police first asked him about it.
But the pronated footprints were all along the pathway, not just where he might have turned around.

I may be wrong but my recollection is that Ron Goldman was said to have put up quite a fight and had wounds all over his body, including the front of his legs and so forth.

And yes, the cut was fresh but it was also small and very much unlike the sort of wounds people often incur when stabbing other people to death, where their hands slip down the wet handle and over the blade. Still, I suppose it could have happened had he been holding onto someone and inadvertently drew the blade across his knuckle.

Other things that are puzzling are why there wasn't a lot of blood on the steering wheel and gear shift? Why was no blood found in any of the shower drains at OJ's house? How did he get rid of the clothes he was wearing and the knife and still get back home in time to get ready to be driven to the airport...and to hide or get rid of them so well that the huge investigation that followed was never able to locate them?

There are just a huge number of unanswerable questions that complicate the "OJ did it" scenario. I'm a white guy but I have to say that had I been on that jury I'd have had to vote not guilty because to me the case that he did it was just not proven. I'd have thought it likely that he did it, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. And particularly so considering the fact that incriminating blood evidence continued to be found weeks after the murder, the prosecution had him jumping over the neighbor's backyard fence and banging into Kato Kaelin's air conditioner where he supposedly dropped one of the bloody gloves while at the same time parking his car at an angle in front of the house and walking in through the front door. And once again, no blood evidence on the front door knob, the outer door handle of the car, the sink and shower drains, no blood anywhere in the house except for a drop on one of his socks, etc. A guilty OJ would have had to accomplish a great many extraordinary things in a very short period of time to account for all this, and I just don't see how it's possible.
  #35  
Old 03-10-2018, 06:40 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,023
[Moderating]
Although this thread started because of a new TV special, none of the discussion past the OP has been about that, so it doesn't look like this thread really fits in CS. How about I bump it over to the Pit? I get the feeling that some of you would appreciate the opportunity to really let loose, here.
  #36  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:42 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
But the pronated footprints were all along the pathway, not just where he might have turned around.
So, whatís your point? How many different footprints are there? Whatís your theory? The evidence reflects that somebody wearing size 12 Bruno Magli shoes walked from the crime scene to the alley where a car was parked. Next to those footprints (which match OJ) are drops of blood which match up to O.J.

Quote:
I may be wrong but my recollection is that Ron Goldman was said to have put up quite a fight and had wounds all over his body, including the front of his legs and so forth.
So? The prevailing theory is the killer was bear hugging him from behind while stabbing his torso. Most of the blood splatter would be shielded by Goldmanís body.

Quote:
And yes, the cut was fresh but it was also small and very much unlike the sort of wounds people often incur when stabbing other people to death, where their hands slip down the wet handle and over the blade. Still, I suppose it could have happened had he been holding onto someone and inadvertently drew the blade across his knuckle.
This is a fallacy that many CTs run into. Regardless of whether you believe the evidence is to be expected, it exists. It is incontrovertible that OJís blood was at the scene. It is incontrovertible that the murderer utilized a knife. It is incontrovertible that O.J. had a fresh cut on his hand days later. And it is incontrovertible that when first asked about it by the police, he said he wasnít sure where he got it, then later admitted opening a cut and bleeding in his car.

Quote:
Other things that are puzzling are why there wasn't a lot of blood on the steering wheel and gear shift?
How much was found? How much do you expect? Is it not true that the blood of both murder victims was found in O.J.ís car, which was seen later parked at his home?

Quote:
Why was no blood found in any of the shower drains at OJ's house?
It was found, and was testified to in the civil trial. Judge Ito didnít allow it in the criminal trial because of the possibility of false positives. Thatís a mistake, in my opinion. The possibility of false positives goes to the weight of the evidence, not whether it is scientifically viable.

Quote:
How did he get rid of the clothes he was wearing and the knife and still get back home in time to get ready to be driven to the airport...and to hide or get rid of them so well that the huge investigation that followed was never able to locate them?
The prevailing theory is that he stuffed it in a bag he brought in the limo and he threw the bag away once he arrived at the airport. He was insistent about handling one carry-on bag when he met up with Kato and the limo driver.

Quote:
There are just a huge number of unanswerable questions that complicate the "OJ did it" scenario. I'm a white guy but I have to say that had I been on that jury I'd have had to vote not guilty because to me the case that he did it was just not proven. I'd have thought it likely that he did it, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. And particularly so considering the fact that incriminating blood evidence continued to be found weeks after the murder, the prosecution had him jumping over the neighbor's backyard fence and banging into Kato Kaelin's air conditioner where he supposedly dropped one of the bloody gloves while at the same time parking his car at an angle in front of the house and walking in through the front door. And once again, no blood evidence on the front door knob, the outer door handle of the car, the sink and shower drains, no blood anywhere in the house except for a drop on one of his socks, etc. A guilty OJ would have had to accomplish a great many extraordinary things in a very short period of time to account for all this, and I just don't see how it's possible.
The job of a juror isnít to conceive of schemes that could have happened. The obligation is to deal with all of the evidence as it exists, without just discounting the inconvenient parts because they can imagine alternative explanations for individual facts. You must analyze everything, thereby giving allowance for unexpected surprise or unexplained questions.

Having said that, I question your complete recollection of the facts. Here is a contemporary report of the driverís testimony - the car wasnít parked on the street when he was looking for the house, OJ was late responding to his buzzing the gate, and he saw a person walk across the driveway before OJ finally responded. Please cite the questionable information you reference.

Finally, recall that todayís analysis need not be limited to what his jury heard. We can also consider those things they never heard, such as the woman who saw him driving erratically away from the crime scene.
  #37  
Old 03-11-2018, 10:05 AM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Fox on Sunday is airing ...
.
Rarely do I lose interest in a thread because of the very first fucking word in the thread.

Not only that, but who really gives a fuck about that lying loser. Definitely will not watch.
  #38  
Old 03-12-2018, 09:34 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
Well, not really nothing. Simpson has all kinds of retirement income that's protected from civil suits.
He's also got a big-ass house in Florida that is protected under our homestead law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
I think he did it. And I think part of him needs to tell. How he beat a murder charge. Maybe he even thinks itís his ticket back to public renown, fame and fortune.

I think before he goes to his grave, heíll probably confess.
He's already beaten the murder charge and lost the civil case. There's no reason for him not to confess now - especially if the motive is profit. I've always thought he did it, but I didn't pay much attention to the case at the time because I didn't have a reason to care about him (he wasn't a celebrity in the UK except among black people, and even that was really only because of the case). But I've also always thought there was more to it than the prosecution theory, and that's why they lost.
  #39  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:37 AM
Lancia's Avatar
Lancia Lancia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Denial
Posts: 1,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
I think before he goes to his grave, heíll probably confess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post

He's already beaten the murder charge and lost the civil case. There's no reason for him not to confess now - especially if the motive is profit.
I remember one of our resident lawyers hereóprobably Brickeródiscussing real life double jeopardy laws vs. Hollywood versions. In the movie Double Jeopardy IIRC (and itís been a long time since Iíve seen it) Ashley Juddís character claims she can kill her husband in front of a city of witnesses and not be tried for the crime because sheís already been tried and found guilty of murdering him once before.

Bricker or whoever it was stated that in real life sheíd be back in the pokey and would be put on trial again. The double jeopardy laws donít apply because trial #2 would be based on a new set of evidence.

So, getting back to OJ. Heís been found not guilty in Brown and Goldmanís death once already. However, if he actually confessed to the murder would he be eligible (if thatís the right word) for another trial since there would be new evidence?

And since weíre in the Pit, fuck OJ with a rusty chainsaw. While Iím sure there was enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury (as someone upthread noted a lot of what the public saw was kept from the jury), the mountain of evidence against him is just too much for a coincidence. The asshole shouldíve been locked up in a little room in San Quentin for the rest of his life.
  #40  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:45 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,707
I think you are misremembering Bricker's discussion. Ashley Judd could have been retried because her husband wasn't actually dead. The fact that she was convicted of killing him did not prevent the state from charging her if she did in fact kill him later on. Charges for killing her husband "in front of a city of witnesses" would be based on a new crime, not new evidence - that is, an entirely new set of facts other than the identity of the parties.

If new evidence arises in OJ's case (as in fact it did, with the murder weapon being found a couple of years ago), tough shit. OJ didn't testify at trial, so he can't be charged with perjury either.

Last edited by Really Not All That Bright; 03-12-2018 at 10:47 AM.
  #41  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:52 AM
Just Asking Questions Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancia View Post
So, getting back to OJ. Heís been found not guilty in Brown and Goldmanís death once already. However, if he actually confessed to the murder would he be eligible (if thatís the right word) for another trial since there would be new evidence?
Nope, once that trial is done, it's done. Someone could find a video tape of OJ doing it, turn in the knife and bloody clothes, or have Nicole come back as a ghost and testify and still no new trial.
  #42  
Old 03-12-2018, 02:14 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 36,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
But the biggest thing to me is simply the lack of huge amounts of blood in OJ's car. No evidence was uncovered at the scene to indicate he disrobed before getting into his car, an action which I would think would have left large telltale bloody smudges on the sidewalk or wherever he took his clothes off before getting into his car, and even then he'd still have lots of wet blood on his hands. .
Maybe he wore a plastic bag as a poncho?
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #43  
Old 03-12-2018, 02:17 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 36,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by terentii View Post
Because he was already wearing a latex glove when he tried it on. Should have been perfectly obvious to the Prosecution idiots before they asked him to do it.

Same reason the bra didn't fit Sue Ellen Mischke when she tried it on---she was already wearing a pullover.
Also the glove had shunken due to the blood.
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #44  
Old 03-12-2018, 02:48 PM
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 16,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Garcetti lost that case in venue selection. Try it near Brentwood, and the Juice is still in jail.
I have heard this a couple of times and I have to ask.......where are you getting this from?????

If the trial is in court near Brentwood, you think the jurors hail from near Brentwood? I can assure you, as someone who has done jury duty in Los Angeles 5 times, this is NOT the case.

Jurors are assigned to courthouses at random, not based on where the juror lives.

I lived in the San Fernando Valley. Never once was I called to a a courthouse in Valley. I was sent Downtown LA, I was sent to Santa Monica, etc...
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca

Last edited by Typo Negative; 03-12-2018 at 02:49 PM.
  #45  
Old 03-12-2018, 03:00 PM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by terentii View Post
If you were watching when it happened, it was obvious what a farce it was.
Seriously, check it out on youtube. OJ trying on the gloves was like one of those ridiculously incompetent people in an infomercial.
  #46  
Old 03-12-2018, 03:42 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancia View Post
I remember one of our resident lawyers hereóprobably Brickeródiscussing real life double jeopardy laws vs. Hollywood versions. In the movie Double Jeopardy IIRC (and itís been a long time since Iíve seen it) Ashley Juddís character claims she can kill her husband in front of a city of witnesses and not be tried for the crime because sheís already been tried and found guilty of murdering him once before.

Bricker or whoever it was stated that in real life sheíd be back in the pokey and would be put on trial again. The double jeopardy laws donít apply because trial #2 would be based on a new set of evidence.

So, getting back to OJ. Heís been found not guilty in Brown and Goldmanís death once already. However, if he actually confessed to the murder would he be eligible (if thatís the right word) for another trial since there would be new evidence?
Not only would he not get a new trial, but that very thing happened in the case of Emmett Till. After they were acquitted, his killers confessed in an interview with Look magazine. They became pariahs of a sort in their town, but suffered no legal consequences whatsoever.
__________________
Itís not you, itís your sports team.
  #47  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:19 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,707
Till's killers could have been tried by the federal government for infringing on his civil rights, but the Justice Department hadn't figured out that strategy yet. OJ can't, because he didn't (allegedly) commit any federal crimes.
  #48  
Old 03-12-2018, 05:21 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
He's a real piece of shit, isn't he? Poor me, the wife-beater.

That said, if you haven't looked at the theory that his kid, Jason Simpson, did the murders, you might find it interesting. Even if the main proponent, per the Telegraph, is a nutjob who, among other things, claims there was a second shooter at JFK, and he not only knows who, but has the bullet.

I still think OJ was there at some point during the proceedings, if only to try and clean up the scene, but I'm not as positive now as I was 20 years ago that he did it.

Thanks for the link.
The one person who has told me that they thought he didn't do it was a white guy who thought his son did it. I respectfully disagreed.

During the trial, which for those of you who aren't old enough to remember was televised live on ALL THREE MAJOR NETWORKS , Newsweek magazine mentioned that the sequestered jurors had all media censored to remove OJ references, and someone wrote them a letter asking where he could subscribe to this service.

Also, when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, my first thought was, "So, how long will this dislodge OJ from the top of the news?" The answer? Two days. I also read about someone whose young child recognized OJ on TV before she recognized Bill Clinton. To me, that was one of the saddest things I ever saw about it.

p.s. I believe that the verdict went the way it did because the L.A. riots were a little too fresh in the jurors' minds.

Last edited by nearwildheaven; 03-12-2018 at 05:23 PM.
  #49  
Old 03-12-2018, 05:25 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBG View Post
Frankly, I never want to hear any more about this piece of shit until he's six feet under, and even then no more than a simple notice of that occurring.
I'd recommend boycotting any station that sees fit to televise his funeral live. I wouldn't be surprised if at least ESPN would try to pull that off.
  #50  
Old 03-12-2018, 06:38 PM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 12,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
I'd recommend boycotting any station that sees fit to televise his funeral live. I wouldn't be surprised if at least ESPN would try to pull that off.
When was somebody's funeral ever broadcast live on TV? Aside from 30 second news reports?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017