Here is a take down of the “son did it” 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 doesn’t add up.
His testimony was withheld on the basis of a priestly confidentiality privelege, not because it didn’t 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 doesn’t have. And only 3 people’s blood was found - that of the victims and of the senior Simpson. There wasn’t unaccounted for blood to identify.
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.
This is a better contemporary account of the controversy surrounding Simpson’s 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 “I did it.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
So, what’s your point? How many different footprints are there? What’s 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.
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 Goldman’s body.
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 OJ’s 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 wasn’t sure where he got it, then later admitted opening a cut and bleeding in his car.
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.’s car, which was seen later parked at his home?
It was found, and was testified to in the civil trial. Judge Ito didn’t allow it in the criminal trial because of the possibility of false positives. That’s a mistake, in my opinion. The possibility of false positives goes to the weight of the evidence, not whether it is scientifically viable.
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.
The job of a juror isn’t 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 driver’s testimony - the car wasn’t 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 today’s 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.
He’s also got a big-ass house in Florida that is protected under our homestead law.
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.
I remember one of our resident lawyers here—probably Bricker—discussing real life double jeopardy laws vs. Hollywood versions. In the movie Double Jeopardy IIRC (and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it) Ashley Judd’s character claims she can kill her husband in front of a city of witnesses and not be tried for the crime because she’s already been tried and found guilty of murdering him once before.
Bricker or whoever it was stated that in real life she’d be back in the pokey and would be put on trial again. The double jeopardy laws don’t apply because trial #2 would be based on a new set of evidence.
So, getting back to OJ. He’s been found not guilty in Brown and Goldman’s death once already. However, if he actually confessed to the murder would he be eligible (if that’s the right word) for another trial since there would be new evidence?
And since we’re in the Pit, fuck OJ with a rusty chainsaw. While I’m 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 should’ve been locked up in a little room in San Quentin for the rest of his life.
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.