The Brown-Goldman murders, OJ & a serial killer

Cafe Society
1

I put this in Cafe Society, because I was moved to post by the recent drama about the OJ Simpson case, and because I’m referencing another TV documentary, and also because I wasn’t really sure where to put it. If the mods want to move it, I’m fine with it.

So, I watched the TV series regarding the Brown-Goldman murders, and the OJ Simpson trial. It did little to change my belief that Simpson is guilty, but ever since Gary Condit didn’t kill Chandra Levy, I’ve never been as certain about anything, as I used to be before that, if that makes sense, so if someone else turns out to be guilty, it won’t floor me.

Anyway, aside from Simpson, there is this candidatefor the murders. The guy is a bona fide serial killer on death row in Florida, who was definitely in the area at the time, and apparently gave his mother some jewelry that was stolen from Nicole Brown’s house. Since he worked there as a contractor, though, he could have stolen it without killing her-- OTOH, though, what a coincidence that a serial killer worked in her house, and she wound up dead. If I had a third hand, I could point out that the way Brown died was not like the way Glen Rogers killed his other victims, but that may not mean anything. His motive may have been different, and he was a guy we know didn’t value life much.

Here’s a wiki article the documentary regarding Glen Rogers and the murders. Not that informative in and of itself, but lots of links. Plus, I’ve seen it, and there’s nothing it gets wrong.

So, if other Dopers, like I do, have the case on the mind, as a result of the recent TV series, what do you think of this development? Does this seem at all likely to you? And what about the TV series? how did it affect your opinion? If anything, it made me more certain that if it wasn’t a random crime (highly unlikely given the type of crime), OJ did it. Like I said, though, I was so sure about Gary Condit. That case really shook my faith in my own judgment about anything I don’t have personal knowledge of. I wonder if I’m capable of forming a valid opinion of anything based just on news items.

2

I don’t think there was ever any physical evidence that linked Conduit to Levy - just circumstantial, like they were having a secret affair.

On the other hand, OJ’s blood was found at the Brown/Goldman murder scene, with a glove exactly like ones that he owned, and footprints made by the type of shoes that he owned. Brown and Goldman’s blood were found in OJ’s vehicle, on his socks, and on the other glove that was found on his property.

Even if the cops had wanted to frame OJ, it would have been pretty impossible, for example, to plant his blood on the scene or keep such a conspiracy secret. And that’s even before we get to the eyewitness testimony about his whereabouts that night. But there was no way a black jury was going to convict him and vindicate the LAPD - not in that city at that time.

So no, it does not seem likely at all that it was anyone else.

3

Who currently has possession of the jewelry, and how was it determined that it belonged to Nicole Brown?

Regards,
Shodan

4

I see what you’re saying RivkahChaya.

I am a fan of what I call “the who killed who?” types of shows. B/c of course, one suspects the boyfriend/ husband. (Usually that sadly true).
But sometimes it isn’t. There are some cases where evidence was poorly taken. Or not processed correctly.

But in the OJ case, it was b/c he could afford really good attorneys, that he was found not guilty.

If I remember correctly, some of the jurors, when they heard all of what we, watching on tv saw, said ‘oh shit, he’s guilty’.

5

If you want a non-OJ candidate for the Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman murders, I think the guy who put OJ’s kid Jason out there as the killer has some good points.

Tl;dr: Jason Simpson had a previous history of violent crime.
Was for some time before the murders taking Depakote for “Jekyll and Hyde Syndrome.”
Got violent in the past without Depakote, and had been off the medication for two months prior to the murders.
Was a professional chef—i.e., he made his living with a knife. (and a few of his previous violent crimes were committed with a knife, including one on a fellow chef.)

Anyway, something else to think about. IMHO, I think OJ was at least at the scene, whether to commit the murders or because his son called afterwards, I dunno. I would have liked the police detectives to have done a more thorough job in their investigation and I would have liked for Jason Simpson to have been conclusively ruled out as a suspect.

Too late now.

6

I never heard that before, although it doesn’t shock me.

Like I said, I think Simpson is guilty. I just don’t have much faith in my opinion, when it’s based on media sources.

7

I have a lot of time for theory that his son did it. None of the ‘open and shut’ evidence explains why OJ wasn’t covered in blood and wounds. There’s enough circumstantial evidence that I’m way open to the idea that Jason was the culprit and OJ came on the scene to clean up.

8

He wasn’t covered in blood because he went home and took a shower, and probably took the bloody clothes with him and got rid of them in Chicago. Even so, they did find some blood on his socks and, of course, his glove. He also had a fresh cut on his hand. Brown and Goldman were unarmed and much smaller than OJ, and possibly taken by surprise, so I don’t know why we should expect him to be covered in wounds.

I think the son doing it is an interesting what-if exercise, but it doesn’t overcome the mountain of physical evidence that puts OJ at the crime scene (and lack of evidence to put Jason there - he wasn’t found to be covered in blood and wounds either).

9

I don’t think I have heard of any juror saying anything like that although two revealed that they voted guilty on the first vote. Even to this day all the jurors that have spoken publicly maintain that they made the right decision.

10

I’ve heard Simpson jurors even recently say that they made the right decision based on what was presented in the trial. I’ve also heard Marcia Clark say that no matter what the prosecution presented, that jury was never going to find Simpson guilty.

I had never heard any serious theories related to possible other suspects. The son is interesting. After doing some searching, it looks like Martin Sheen is putting out a documentary that will point the finger at Jason Simpson.

11

The evidence against OJ was overwhelming but the prosecution allowed the jury to be dazzled with bullshit. He was clearly guilty. The idea that he was framed by the police was ludicrous.
Gary Condit came under suspicion because he was having an affair. There was no evidence. It was gossip not a criminal case.

12

There are no other candidates for the murders. O.J. Simpson committed the murders. He bled all over the murder scene, bled all over his car, left bloody shoe prints at the murder scene, had the victim’s blood in his car, had a long history of abusing and threatening one of the victims, had no alibi, and had “no idea” how he had sustained a deep gash in his hand on the night of the murders. It is not even remotely possible for him to be innocent.

Nothing. Come back if you find anybody else whose blood and shoe prints were found at the murder scene, with the victims’ blood in his or her car, with no alibi, and with a long history of abusing and threatening one of the victims.

Right, and OJ was willing to risk life imprisonment to take the rap for his son. That’s just the kind of guy he is–selfless and always thinking of others. What a crock.

13

For anyone with any doubts about who did it, I recommend Daniel Petrocelli’s book, Triumph of Justice. The author is the lawyer the Goldman’s hired to represent them in the trial that found Simpson liable for the murders and the book is chocked full of ‘beyond [del]a reasonable doubt[/del] any doubt at all’ goodness.

14

The prosecution missed a slam dunk case. If they had bothered to find the photos of OJ wearing those rare expensive shoes it would have helped. If they had not put the Nazi cop on the stand it would have helped. If they hadn’t asked OJ to try on the leather gloves over latex gloves (hello…friction!) it would have helped. That being said, that jury might have voted to acquit even if a videotape of OJ doing the killing had existed.