Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: OJ Simpson, an alternative theory


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:
RE: OJ Simpson, an alternative theory


Hey how y'all doing? Been a busy month in this crazy town. So while reviewing books for my column in the magazine, I came upon something I absolutely couldn't resist. I know what y'all are going to say, just hear me out. Isn't that the reason for this discussion? It's called, "OJ Is Innocent and I Can Prove It" by private investigator William Dear. Now. I never would have gone down this road had it not been for our poster who introduced the theory that Jason Simpson is the real killer and that possibly OJ helped him cover it up. At the time of this thread I was [and frankly still am] convinced OJ did it with the help of an accomplice. But much interesting debate occured and I thought about it for quite a while.

I'm going over this book, an EXTREMELY LONG read and packed with evidence that was first made news to me here on this board and I'm interested to know if this is even remotely possible. Clearly there was so much misplaced evidence, allegations of misconduct on both the part of the police, and the prosecution that I'm just too damn curious for my own good.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/oj-simpson-book-jason-simpson-william-dear_n_1397583.html

I have a couple of other good books on the list, if you want to chat, you guys need to start posting. Summer's over. Back to school, pick up a book, don't be a fool!



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

I FINALLY finished this book! Go me. I have to say, the guy who wrote this, William Dear, is a real piece of work. He really believes OJ didn't do it and has spent 17 years of his life trying to prove it. He dug through Jason Simpson's criminal record [and he's got a nasty record] his medical history [going so far as to impersonate a doctor to obtain Jason's medical records] and practically stalked down Jason's ex-girlfriend's to interview them for this book.

His theory is that Jason Simpson [OJ's oldest son from his first marraige] killed Nicole and Ron.Years of rage at OJ and a chemical imbalance fueled Jason's anger at Nicole when she canceled a dinner at a restarant Jason was cooking at after the dance recital of his little sister Sydney. The murders of Nicole and Ron happened that night, Dear theorized, after Nicole cancelled the dinner at Jason's place of employment and instead went to Mezzaluna, where Ron Goldman worked as a waiter. OJ helped cover up the murders and that is why his DNA was found at the crime scene. But OJ didn't do it, Jason was the killer.

Now, Jason was never charged as a suspect. And Dear is right about one thing: since OJ was found not guilty, noone else has been prosecuted for the double homicide. Some people think, well, OJ is in prison for something else and that's plenty enough karma. But the way this man went after the information to write this book, I have serious disagreements with. Your medical records should be private. And I'd hate to think any of my ex's were getting stalked down to be interviewed by a writer. It just seemed wrong the way he went about it. 

In the event you'd like to read this, and I think 99% of the population isn't going to appriciate this man's theories, the ISBN # is 1-61608-620-6. 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

Email......

Dear Annarocket,

So, I saw that OJ Simpson is still one of the top topics on this board so I thought I'd bring up the book he wrote If I Did it. You said that you read it (if I read right) Did you think any of that made any sense or was it all a load of crap? because I can't believe any dad would kill the mom of his kids where the kids would wake up and find her dead in such a horrible way like that.

Jenelle Lennart, Chicago

Hey Jenelle, thanks for your nice email. That was sweet

Honestly? I really believe he did it and I don't think he was thinking about the kids at the time. I did read "If I Did It" and I think most of it was a load. I think when he did it, he wasn't thinking about anything other than killing her, and killing Ron Goldman. No witnesses. 

Even the ghostwriter, Pablo Fenjeves thought he was full of crap. He knew OJ was trying to make himself look good in the public eyes and make some serious cash on the way. He didn't realize that public backlash was going to bury him.

I read a great review of that book that was in Vanity Fair, although I don't usually read that mag, this guy got it spot on.

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2007/01/ojsimpson200701



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

annarocket wrote:

I FINALLY finished this book! Go me. I have to say, the guy who wrote this, William Dear, is a real piece of work. He really believes OJ didn't do it and has spent 17 years of his life trying to prove it. He dug through Jason Simpson's criminal record [and he's got a nasty record] his medical history [going so far as to impersonate a doctor to obtain Jason's medical records] and practically stalked down Jason's ex-girlfriend's to interview them for this book.

His theory is that Jason Simpson [OJ's oldest son from his first marraige] killed Nicole and Ron.Years of rage at OJ and a chemical imbalance fueled Jason's anger at Nicole when she canceled a dinner at a restarant Jason was cooking at after the dance recital of his little sister Sydney. The murders of Nicole and Ron happened that night, Dear theorized, after Nicole cancelled the dinner at Jason's place of employment and instead went to Mezzaluna, where Ron Goldman worked as a waiter. OJ helped cover up the murders and that is why his DNA was found at the crime scene. But OJ didn't do it, Jason was the killer.

Now, Jason was never charged as a suspect. And Dear is right about one thing: since OJ was found not guilty, noone else has been prosecuted for the double homicide. Some people think, well, OJ is in prison for something else and that's plenty enough karma. But the way this man went after the information to write this book, I have serious disagreements with. Your medical records should be private. And I'd hate to think any of my ex's were getting stalked down to be interviewed by a writer. It just seemed wrong the way he went about it. 

In the event you'd like to read this, and I think 99% of the population isn't going to appriciate this man's theories, the ISBN # is 1-61608-620-6. 


 

Hi,

I'm new to this board and am here basically due to this case, and William Dear's take on things.

I thought he brought out a great deal of convincing evidence showing Jason needs a very serious look.  I get that people are disturbed by how he got some of the info, but that does not address its veracity (and in reality Dear's methods are used by police and investigative journalists all the time).

 

I also think many of what are perceived to be verities concerning OJ and his actions and attitudes don't really bear up to scrutiny well.

 

However, I'm not sure I buy Dear's later conclusion that OJ came later and discovered his son's evil deed.  In fact, I think OJ may not have known a thing about the murders until he got the call in Chicago. 

The key you have to remember is, Jason fits all the presented physical evidence pretty well.  Add to that Dear's findings in that book, and then...



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

Greetings bronco60 and welcome, I'm annarocket. This is my forum and Navywife and I mod the board.  

First, and respectfully, props on finishing that book with an open mind. Not everyone could have.

Dear theorized that Jason didn't hero worship his father and in a book I've since read, "Raging Heart" by Sheila Weller [ISBN #0-671-52146-2] I believe now that his theory is correct. Weller writes that OJ was particularly tough on Jason and that Jason even saw OJ hit his first wife, Margurite. Jason only tried to play football at his short lived college career to please OJ. That struck me as interesting because I thought Jason thought his father was a God.

I've never read that the Brown family had plans to dine anywhere other than Mezzaluna the night of Sydney's dance recital, and it would seem like if that had happened, someone would have dug that up. Have you read or seen anywhere any proof of that?

It's true that the cops [and journalists] use the same wiles that Dear used to get information, but the cops are doing it to put criminals behind bars. Journalists should have more integrity and no matter what, your medical records are protected under the HIPPA act which forbids people to go snooping into that by law. That was just wrong. Dear isn't a cop.

Dear didn't convince me that Jason did it. He makes a good case that someone else COULD have done it WITH OJ and I think someone did do it with OJ. He didn't act alone. But I don't think it was Jason. If we believe the theory of Dear that Jason was mentally unbalanced, if he'd participated in those murders, I think he would have come unglued and confessed. That was a secret way too big to keep. 

Did you read "If I Did It?"? I'd love to hear your take on that!

Thank you for an interesting post. I love a good OJ debate. Please come back soon.           evileye

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

annarocket wrote:

Greetings bronco60 and welcome, I'm annarocket. This is my forum and Navywife and I mod the board.  

First, and respectfully, props on finishing that book with an open mind. Not everyone could have.

Dear theorized that Jason didn't hero worship his father and in a book I've since read, "Raging Heart" by Sheila Weller [ISBN #0-671-52146-2] I believe now that his theory is correct. Weller writes that OJ was particularly tough on Jason and that Jason even saw OJ hit his first wife, Margurite. Jason only tried to play football at his short lived college career to please OJ. That struck me as interesting because I thought Jason thought his father was a God.

I've never read that the Brown family had plans to dine anywhere other than Mezzaluna the night of Sydney's dance recital, and it would seem like if that had happened, someone would have dug that up. Have you read or seen anywhere any proof of that?

It's true that the cops [and journalists] use the same wiles that Dear used to get information, but the cops are doing it to put criminals behind bars. Journalists should have more integrity and no matter what, your medical records are protected under the HIPPA act which forbids people to go snooping into that by law. That was just wrong. Dear isn't a cop.

Dear didn't convince me that Jason did it. He makes a good case that someone else COULD have done it WITH OJ and I think someone did do it with OJ. He didn't act alone. But I don't think it was Jason. If we believe the theory of Dear that Jason was mentally unbalanced, if he'd participated in those murders, I think he would have come unglued and confessed. That was a secret way too big to keep. 

Did you read "If I Did It?"? I'd love to hear your take on that!

Thank you for an interesting post. I love a good OJ debate. Please come back soon.           evileye

 


 Hi!

 

Thanks for the welcome.  For the record, I'm a guy in my mid-fifties who:

Played high school football back in the day but did not think OJ was a "hero".  He was not on my favorite teams, and his running style was to

evade, not to be brutishly-physical (the sorts of guys I respected, as a defensive lineman myself).

 

Thought, until I read Dear's book the summer before last, that OJ likely did it, and it was very possible the police had planted some evidence.

 

Thought the jury probably made the right decision based on a "reasonable doubt" standard, with so many parts of its case crumbling when the witnesses were shown to be lying (Vannater, Furhman, Denise Brown) or the procedures corrupted.

 

I've also never been a "true crime" fan per se though I read a lot.  I belong to a "skeptics" group that usually looks at fringe or anomalous claims with a critical eye.

 

So, all that's just to show I don't really have an axe in this question of whether or not he was guilty--that is, until I read Dear's book.

 

After that I've grown quite fascinated by the whole affair--the racial breakdown of assessments of his guilt, the weird, unexplained details, the way the media shaped and distorted perceptions (which remains true today), the complexity of the crime scene.  And so I've read maybe two dozen or more books on the matter, with more on the way.  I do have "If I did it" and "Raging Heart" on my immediate list, just after I finish Marcia Clark's "Without a Doubt".  I put some of them on the backburner, or never even initially thought to read them, because many of them are obviously self-serving.  But I've found that even the worst of them have interesting clues and avenues that deserve thought.

 

So...as for Dear's book and your questions/comments...

 

In Jason's civil trial deposition Dan Petrocelli (page 158 of Dear's book) elicited testimony by him that he was expecting Nicole, and in fact called her to see how many people were coming that evening.  It is possible he was completely stood up and she never even told him this, but it seems clear he did in fact expect them to come.  He for example arranged for special food etc.

 

Of course, cops do those things to solve crimes.  But that's *exactly what Bill Dear is trying to do!*.  When we recall brave people like Daniel Ellsberg, who revealed the Pentagon Papers, or those behind the FBI burglary that revealed mass spying on innocents, we understand that their motives were to flush out the truth, a truth at others would like to hid to all our detriment.  Ultimately we might decry such tactics (or might not), but in the end the real question for us now that the informtation is out there is--is it true?

 

I have not seen any good analysis showing the great deal of evidence pointing to Jason as a person of interest to *not* be true...like his strange behavior at Nicole's funeral (Petrocelli's book describes him as "hyperventilating", and he alone among the mourners broke down in sobs and ran out the building, locking himself in the limo).  Why does he do this to a person who, while somewhat close to him, was hardly *that* close.

 

How do you, or does anyone, explain the falsified time sheet?  I find it very hard to come up with an explantion other than Dear's for the fact that a perfectly good time punch machine has one, and only one (for all the employees, not just Jason) manual entry which just happens to be at the time and day of the murders, and just happens to clear him (and further is false, since his work was finished an hour later as subsequent info found by Dear also shows)?

That's just to incredible not to be extremely suggestive.

 

There is the fact of his crazy ramblings, about solving problems with a knife.  There is the fact that he ran out of medicine, and was starting to or afraid he'd start to "rage".  Going off complex mental drugs can have severe consequences, and you can double or triple those when you consider you are never supposed to drink, or take cocaine etc while using them (Jason did tons of both).  There is the fact that Jason stated he sometimes heard voices, and had been psychiatrically committed for a few days.

 

There is the physical fact that Jason, not OJ, was the one photographed wearing the type and color of the hat found at the scene, plus the fact that an unexplained dog hair found in it matches the color of Jason's beloved dog, which he is seen playing with (with his cap on).  There is the fact that OJ was, in fact, photographed with the style of gloves used in the murder--but with black ones, not brown ones.  Two pairs of them were purchased at the same time, and Nicole often gave both OJ and his son the same mens' attaire gift. 

 

There is the fact that OJ's son is a close match for him in size and appearance, and in particular in DNA (even the skewed numbers presented at the trial would not exclude Jason, and while the prosecution falsely tried to claim it was 100% to be OJ's blood their witnesses had to admit that was not true; the possibility if was a family member match was different).

 

There is the fact that Jason had routine access to both OJ's and Nicole's houses, and that he routinely borrowed/stole OJ's clothes.  There is the fact that OJ was a fastidious dresser who never let worn or damaged clothing touch his body--and yet, the gloves found at the crime scene were said to have been worn from prior use.

 

There's plenty more...but so many people are so in vested in the idea OJ did it, I'm not sure society will ever take a good look at the case again.  But as we can see from the McMartin and Central Park Five cases, "society" can be deeply, radically wrong sometimes when it comes to things "everybody" knows is true.

 

 

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

It's nice to meet you! This board originally was attached to a website that has since gone down but the owner wrote extensively about OJ and this case. It has long been one of the most discussed/viewed topics, with most people thinking that OJ is  guilty. It wasn't until I read, "If I Did It" that I started thinking he had help.

 

As much as I hate it, the jury had to consider that Furman was lying and probably contaminated the hell out of that crime scene. I doubt that those gloves were even really OJ's. Furman also had access to the blood samples taken from OJ. As sympathetic as I am to Denise Brown---if someone murdered my sister,I'd have a nervous breakdown---could she be a really reliable witness in that state? I don't think so. I'm not insinuating she lied about anything but she was probably distraught and that affected her memory and judgement.

 

Excellent point on the medication. I had a head injury in 05 and I have seizures that I'm on medication for every day and if I just quit taking it,Lord have mercy. I don't even want to speculate on what would happen. You don't do it, you just don't! That's beyond my reasoning and if he "ran out" and just said screw it, and it wasn't a priority who knows what state of mind it would have lead to? He's been portrayed as highly unstable and cocaine and alcohol on top of that could lead to murderous rage.

 

You've got me on the time clock thing. The only thing I've read is that he claimed in a civil deposition that he cooked that night in front of 200 people but that place seated less than 100, and he had clocked out before the murders took place. I'm not sure where I saw that, I'll have to look it back up.

 

I agree that many books written are self-serving and I've skipped a few, like Faye Resnick's, "The Private Diary Of A Life Interrupted". From the reviews and press, it sounded exploitative. Also on my,no-thanks list is Mark Furman's, "Murder In Brentwood". I bought a copy of Christopher Darden's "In Contempt" at a book sale at my local library and I'm looking forward to starting that tonight.So we can have a go at that if you've read it. Do read "If I Did It". I can't for the life of me imagine anyone being found not guilty of double homicide and contributing to a missive like that. When Judith Regan was going to have that interview to coincide with the release of the book,the public backlash was so swift, it killed her entire career. If it hadn't been for a judge ordering the Goldman family to the rights of the book, I don't know that we'd ever gotten to see it. The media presents things and people rush to judgement. It was so racially charged I don't think he got a fair trial, and you are 100% right that "society" can be deeply, radically wrong when it comes to things "everybody" knows is true. Beautifully stated, sir.

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

annarocket wrote:

It's nice to meet you! This board originally was attached to a website that has since gone down but the owner wrote extensively about OJ and this case. It has long been one of the most discussed/viewed topics, with most people thinking that OJ is  guilty. It wasn't until I read, "If I Did It" that I started thinking he had help.

 

As much as I hate it, the jury had to consider that Furman was lying and probably contaminated the hell out of that crime scene. I doubt that those gloves were even really OJ's. Furman also had access to the blood samples taken from OJ. As sympathetic as I am to Denise Brown---if someone murdered my sister,I'd have a nervous breakdown---could she be a really reliable witness in that state? I don't think so. I'm not insinuating she lied about anything but she was probably distraught and that affected her memory and judgement.

 

Excellent point on the medication. I had a head injury in 05 and I have seizures that I'm on medication for every day and if I just quit taking it,Lord have mercy. I don't even want to speculate on what would happen. You don't do it, you just don't! That's beyond my reasoning and if he "ran out" and just said screw it, and it wasn't a priority who knows what state of mind it would have lead to? He's been portrayed as highly unstable and cocaine and alcohol on top of that could lead to murderous rage.

 

You've got me on the time clock thing. The only thing I've read is that he claimed in a civil deposition that he cooked that night in front of 200 people but that place seated less than 100, and he had clocked out before the murders took place. I'm not sure where I saw that, I'll have to look it back up.

 

I agree that many books written are self-serving and I've skipped a few, like Faye Resnick's, "The Private Diary Of A Life Interrupted". From the reviews and press, it sounded exploitative. Also on my,no-thanks list is Mark Furman's, "Murder In Brentwood". I bought a copy of Christopher Darden's "In Contempt" at a book sale at my local library and I'm looking forward to starting that tonight.So we can have a go at that if you've read it. Do read "If I Did It". I can't for the life of me imagine anyone being found not guilty of double homicide and contributing to a missive like that. When Judith Regan was going to have that interview to coincide with the release of the book,the public backlash was so swift, it killed her entire career. If it hadn't been for a judge ordering the Goldman family to the rights of the book, I don't know that we'd ever gotten to see it. The media presents things and people rush to judgement. It was so racially charged I don't think he got a fair trial, and you are 100% right that "society" can be deeply, radically wrong when it comes to things "everybody" knows is true. Beautifully stated, sir.

 


 

Well it's nice to be able to discuss the case without immediately having people call you a moron when you say "maybe he didn't do it!" lol. ;)

I knew about problems with medication because I had my own severe illness (sorry to hear about your accident, btw) 6 years ago, a brain tumor that was removed.  Before they figure out I had it, one of the numerous symptoms I suffered from was very high blood pressure that normal meds weren't controlling.  So they gave me one that targeted the brain, not the vascular walls, in order to treat the BP.  Unfortunately, one of the common side effects of that was horrible, horrible nightmares!  So I immediately said I wanted to be taken off.  Uh, no, came the response.  If you drop cold turkey, your BP will probably shoot through the roof.  So I had to titrate off the poison for several weeks.

 

Maybe that's the key...all us people discussing this 20-year-old murder case need our heads examined. ;)

 

Jason't alibi was indeed that he was in front of 200 people at the time of the murders, but the restaurant never held more than around 80, and hardly anyone went there on Sunday nights.  So somebody lied to the cops, and they never double-checked.

 

Jason's history with women, with being embarrassed, and with sudden violent incidents all argue for a closer look.  He attacked one girlfriend with a knife, butchering her hair.  That same girl he picked up and hurled down into a bathtub, almost breaking her back.  Another girlfriend made an innocuous moce toward another male at a party, and that sent him off into a rage leading him to attempting to strangle her.  Witnesses said he'd have killed her if they did not drag him away.  He also tried to commit suicide at least three times, once with a knife or scissors to his stomach; one on some window glass, to his wrists; and once I believe via medication O/D.  Oh, and when Nicole was murdered he was on probation for having attacked his boss with a knife (pled down to a misdemeanor).

 

Jason was stark raving nuts, when triggered...by seemingly innocuous (to us) things.

 

Did the original site owner stick around?  It would be fun to engage more points with others who are knowledgeable about the case.  I see 20/20 will broadcast OJ's civil deposition.  From early clips it seems highly biased against OJ, which seems to have been a common thing with the media in this case.  From early on, they thought he was guilty, and his possible guilt was also a potential boon to their coverage...so they had motive and bias.

 



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

I agree about Faye but for completeness' sake I feel I should read it.  Just about every book I've read so far, including the academic ones, has at least a couple of factual errors.  There were 50,000 pages of trial testimony, and there is a vast amount of info that never made it to trial, so I guess that's to be expected.

 

As it happens, I just finished Darden's book last night.  There is a lot in there about his personal life and upbringing, which was to a degree interesting but got boring at times.  There is also a lot of the personal damage he suffered as the "uncle tom" of the prosecution.

 

He does come off as the typical biased prosecutor, which I guess they have to be given their stated position.  A couple of things I picked up were his observation that Simpson was photographed wearing the black gloves, but the brown ones were at the scene.  Also hairs from the blue knit cap were found in the Bronco.  If the cap is Jason's--and the only evidence of a Simpson wearing such a cap is photos of Jason--that's pretty damning.

 

Btw, William Dear found lots of photos of Jason.  Those dated after the murder still show him wearing those knit watch caps--but in a different color.  Before, he's seen with the blue cap.

Hmmm...



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

Ah, nobody gets to call anybody names.....I don't let that happen. You can call criminals morons though, that's widely accepted behavior! And people DO come around to give ME a hard time! Sometimes the haters are funny. But the users don't get to attack each other!   biggrin  There's always something going on in my head so yeah, I'm for sure in need of a head exam LOL!

 

One of the things that struck me in Dear's book was at least it seemed to me, that in trying to exonerate OJ, he really put it on Jason that he was mentally unstable and very capable of killing someone. He was tremendously abusive towards women. Dear couldn't understand why didn't the authorities open a case against Jason when OJ was found not guilty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the feeling that he really thought that it was glaringly obvious to all that if OJ didn't do it, the cops should have made a beeline for Jason. 

 

The caps are interesting because you'd think if it was evidence in a double homicide, that's the last thing I'd be seen in. Same with the Bruno Magli shoes. I saw a clip from the 20/20 broadcast where they were asking OJ about them and he was denying that he owned a pair, then the detective showed him a photo of himself wearing a pair of the Bruno Magli's. The look on his face was priceless. It was obvious he was blindsided.

 

The original owner doesn't hang out much, she's a wonderful woman that I've been friends with for many years. The site was our baby and we did great work together. We've talked about putting it back up, her piece on this case was well written and got terrific feedback. For a while we had the crime scene photos up as well, and that brought up a lot of discussion. Many people didn't agree with her decision to post them, and it happened before I had administrative duties. But that's a whole different avenue.      evileye

 

 

 

 

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

annarocket wrote:

Ah, nobody gets to call anybody names.....I don't let that happen. You can call criminals morons though, that's widely accepted behavior! And people DO come around to give ME a hard time! Sometimes the haters are funny. But the users don't get to attack each other!   biggrin  There's always something going on in my head so yeah, I'm for sure in need of a head exam LOL!

 

One of the things that struck me in Dear's book was at least it seemed to me, that in trying to exonerate OJ, he really put it on Jason that he was mentally unstable and very capable of killing someone. He was tremendously abusive towards women. Dear couldn't understand why didn't the authorities open a case against Jason when OJ was found not guilty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the feeling that he really thought that it was glaringly obvious to all that if OJ didn't do it, the cops should have made a beeline for Jason. 

 

The caps are interesting because you'd think if it was evidence in a double homicide, that's the last thing I'd be seen in. Same with the Bruno Magli shoes. I saw a clip from the 20/20 broadcast where they were asking OJ about them and he was denying that he owned a pair, then the detective showed him a photo of himself wearing a pair of the Bruno Magli's. The look on his face was priceless. It was obvious he was blindsided.

 

The original owner doesn't hang out much, she's a wonderful woman that I've been friends with for many years. The site was our baby and we did great work together. We've talked about putting it back up, her piece on this case was well written and got terrific feedback. For a while we had the crime scene photos up as well, and that brought up a lot of discussion. Many people didn't agree with her decision to post them, and it happened before I had administrative duties. But that's a whole different avenue.      evileye

 

 

 

 Are the "OG"'s posts still around?  Might be interesting to compare notes.

William Dear tried like gangbusters to get them to look into Jason, but he has been completely stonewalled.  That's pretty common behavior actually, when you have high-profile cases that may involve serious error or misbehavior (like McMartin or the Central Park Five, both of which were witch hunts).

I agree, it doesn't make sense for OJ to wear, for the first time ever, some weird "watch cap" that doesn't even fit his giant head.  And as far as the shoes...you mean, he's planing a murder but likes to do it in style?  Does he have a death wish?  He owns tons of athletic shoes, which I would think would be more appropriate for the task at hand.

So deciding to wear Bruno Maglis doesn't make any sense either.  On the other hand, Jason admitted he swiped OJ's stuff all the time.

Another weird thing, that glove found on Rockingham.  How does a big man like OJ just crash into the ground or the airconditioner (one prosecution version) or walk down the path (other version) and not leave a single footprint, or disturb any leaves?  No, he just happens to stop and plant a fatally-incriminating glove?  And then he troops back into the driveway and tries to sneak into the front, instead of just taking a back door like he could (the laundry room was also back along that path)?  Kato was very clear that he heard three "thumps" in sequence.  The only thing to me that makes sense, hard to believe though it might be, is that it was some kind of signal to draw attention to the glove.  What else could it be?  A person could stand in the neighbor's yard and reach Kato's wall, banging it hard, and then drop the glove which would explain the total lack of other evidence of human recent human activity by the aircon/thump spot.

In a post on this page someone says Jason was not a large man, but this is untrue.  He was 5'11 or so and 230 lbs, and had been a football player himself.  And, he had been trained in hand-to-hand combat while in military school, which surely included knife fighting.

Looks like most people have moved on, but I just think this whole thing is fascinating, from the giant public audience that now seems to have forgotten, to the way the media filtered out so much info, to the many things people say about the case when discussing it now that simply are not true, to the weird facts of the case.

For example, a woman called a West LA police station at 10:30 asking if they knew about 2 murders on the Westside!  That's just too crazy to ignore.  And Nicole's wris****ch was frozen at 10:03, when it struck the ground presumably while she was being attacked.  Since OJ was on the phone at the time, that lets him off...but they never brought this out.

And so on...

 


 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

The OG is Jillybean. She posted once on the first page of this thread, but I'll look and see if I can find one of the other many threads that are full of OJ talk where she has much more to say on this subject.

That glove thing is a real buster for me. I believe one was found at the scene of the crime. Being that it was leather, the blood on it made it expand and then shrink when it dried. You don't have to be a criminologist to figure out that's going to effect how it will fit anyone who tries it on. I also believe Mark Furman planted the other glove at OJ's residence behind the guest house where Kato Kalin was staying. I think it would have been way too hard for OJ to navigate his way through that small of a space considering his size and by that time, he reportedly had issues with arthritis and not in top physical form to be running around like that. I do believe he committed this crime, but I don't believe he did it the way everyone thinks.

I'm the one who didn't think Jason was a large man, I'll cop to that comment. I never wanted to get into this case [many reasons] but due to admin duties and such, I did, and had to research Jason and sure enough he is sizable enough to really hurt someone. Nicole was a petite lady, but Ron Goldman was into martial arts and by all accounts, could defend himself. It's hard to imagine that in that two against one situation Nicole didn't think to run inside, lock herself in and call 911 to protect her kids, especially since she'd seen OJ become violent before.....except it wasn't two against one. It was two against two. And I think the other person there was AC Cowlings. Nicole loved and trusted AC so at first she didn't feel too threatened but it turned violent very quickly. And OJ pulled out that knife, and it was over.

After I read "If I did It", I got that stuck in my head, and my sociology professor and I went around and around about it for the better part of TWO YEARS!! Most people have not moved on, my friend. Why? Because noone has been made accountable for these murders. There has been no justice, no matter how you cut it.

PS:I finished Darden's book.....so-so.

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

"This is the year of the knife for me."

--Jason Simpson

 

I see from reading the first page in this thread someone with the handle MWATetc... also had these ideas.  If he/she is around it would be great to discuss this some more.

 

I also read Jilly's sole post here, so I guess I get the gist of her comments.  I actually DO think this was a domestic violence, case, just not the kind that most people want to assume.  In fact, if you look closely at the DV evidence against OJ, it's pretty weak (as even Darden mentions).  Though that is a whole another complex and involved discussion. ;)

 

I thought AC, who would absolutely be the one to help OJ do something like this if that were possible, had an iron-clad alibi?  And, he was also close to Nicole.  I'm thinking of my very good friends to whom I am also somewhat close to their wives, and it is hard to imagine helping my buddy commit murder, and certainly holding that in for very long.  Though I guess it is possible.  But again, I thought it was confirmed he was far away from everything that night.

 

One interesting fact that seems to get little mention is the broken wris****ch on Nicole's arm, locked at 10:03.  That almost has to be an indication of the time she was struck and fell hard on the ground.  Now, we know OJ was on the phone calling Paula Barbieri at that exact moment, so...how does it go down that he's also committing murder?  "Please hold while I murder my ex"?  It's very exculpatory, I feel.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

AC's "iron clad alibi" was kind of a joke. If you remember, as the whole shebang went down, AC held a press conference and announced a 1-900 number for people to call that he would answer questions about everything EXCEPT the murder and the trial! And this was only after the DA announced he would not be prosecuted for aiding and abbeting a felon for the murder and slow speed chase OJ and he took the day OJ was finally taken into custody. Reports later said he made over 1.2 million dollars, if I remember right. I'll have to look but I'm pretty sure I read that on Wikipedia. It's easy to talk the talk once you know you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

I didn't mean to imply AC WANTED to help OJ do it....I'm starting to sound like a broken record but if you read "If I Did It" the chapter that outlines the night in question, the person that helps OJ do it, is a mysterious man named "Charlie" "If" OJ did it, he says, he had help and "Charlie" didn't want to help him. "Charlie" shows up to his house to tell him that Nicole has been partying with a fast crowd and doing drugs. This enrages OJ and he and "Charlie" go to Nicole's condo to "scare" her. You get the jist.

In "Raging Heart", Sheila Weller adresses the watch thing and says that while driving, OJ was on the phone to Paula Barbieri. Did you read her book? Is it worth a go?

Thanks so much for a great discussion! I'm loving this! I wish Mwat would come back as well. He was very articulate and left after a dispute with another mod and it was unfortunate we couldn't resolve their issues.

 

 

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

annarocket wrote:

AC's "iron clad alibi" was kind of a joke. If you remember, as the whole shebang went down, AC held a press conference and announced a 1-900 number for people to call that he would answer questions about everything EXCEPT the murder and the trial! And this was only after the DA announced he would not be prosecuted for aiding and abbeting a felon for the murder and slow speed chase OJ and he took the day OJ was finally taken into custody. Reports later said he made over 1.2 million dollars, if I remember right. I'll have to look but I'm pretty sure I read that on Wikipedia. It's easy to talk the talk once you know you aren't going to get in trouble for it.

I didn't mean to imply AC WANTED to help OJ do it....I'm starting to sound like a broken record but if you read "If I Did It" the chapter that outlines the night in question, the person that helps OJ do it, is a mysterious man named "Charlie" "If" OJ did it, he says, he had help and "Charlie" didn't want to help him. "Charlie" shows up to his house to tell him that Nicole has been partying with a fast crowd and doing drugs. This enrages OJ and he and "Charlie" go to Nicole's condo to "scare" her. You get the jist.

In "Raging Heart", Sheila Weller adresses the watch thing and says that while driving, OJ was on the phone to Paula Barbieri. Did you read her book? Is it worth a go?

Thanks so much for a great discussion! I'm loving this! I wish Mwat would come back as well. He was very articulate and left after a dispute with another mod and it was unfortunate we couldn't resolve their issues.

 

 

 


 

I will have to look more into this "AC alibi" business, as it is one thing I have not studied closely.  I recall Bill Dear saying he did investigate it and was convinced AC had no involvement.  In my understanding, had they found direct evidence of his involvement of a cover-up or the actual murder, he would have  been vulnerable to new charges since the GJ was just looking at the Bronco chase/non-chase.  Of course there are some weird things about AC, like his connection with the fugitive mafia guy, and that hooker who was caught with a bunch of drugs.

This whole business is so very strange in so many different ways, which I guess is the main reason for the continued fascination.

 

Paula's book was better than I expected, I have to admit.  I wasn't even going to bother with it until I realized I was finding details in even the worst book (mike Gilbert's for me, so far) so I'd probably have to suck it up and read.   It was enlightening, I thought.  Ultimately she seems ambivalent as to his guilt, though favoring he didn't do it.

I will be reading Raging Heart soon.

One thing I've noticed about this case...people rarely look at things from the point of view of OJ (assuming he didn't do it), just imagining events as if they happened to themselves.  Take for example his interview with the police.  Clark and Darden both excuse the cops for having a supposed crappy interrogation with him the day after the murders because they had been up all night at the murder scenes, and yet neither (or anybody else) stops to remembers that OJ had at that time been up basically for 36 hours, after a week of constant air travel, to come home to learn that a) his life's love had been murdered, and b) he was being accused of the crime!  Guilty or innocent, someone under those conditions could hardly be expected to give crisp, exact answers to a bunch of questions from people who think he's an evildoer.

Or, with the book, and his interviews etc. after the trial (he was slammed for not lying low instead of speaking out as he did initially).  By the time "If I did It" was written, Simpson's reputation in the media and among most Americans was at such a low point that, from his perspective, other considerations took precedence.  As he stated, he had no source of income save his pension, and yet had to raise two kids on his own.   So he felt there was little to lose if he were to take some cash and let some tabloid outfit publish a bit of sleaze.  It's not something I would do, I hope, but none of us have ever been in that spot.

If it came down to you and your kids being deprived, or taking some money that would give you and them a brighter future and at the cost of something (your good name) which no longer existed--can we all really say we wouldn't do the same?  I'm really not sure.

 

In any event, I don't give the book any probative value at all.  It was, ironically and amazingly, penned by a pro-prosecution witness (Pablo Fenjves) who in the past had been a National Enquirer writer.  That, I think, says it all about the book.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/oj-simpson-if-i-did-it_n_5505227.html

 

One book that I can recommend was somewhat dry, as it was written by an academic, but shows via statistical analysis and a focus group the various biases in the case (media anti-oj, black/white education/non-education male/female etc.).  It's titled "OJ Simpson Facts and Fictions" by Darnell Hunt, a professor now at UCLA.

 

 

It is a shame about Mwat and Jilly not being around on this matter.  The consequences of establishing what actually happened are, if some of these ideas are accurate, pretty astounding.

Thank you too for the discussion!  I do think the truth is out there, and it lies at the bottom of Jason's tortured heart.

 

 

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

OJ wasn't in any fear of losing one thin dime due to the shredding of his reputation since after he lost the civil suit in which he was ordered to pay the Brown and Goldman families 33 million dollars he peaced out to Florida, where his NFL pension could not be touched. He didn't have to write that book to secure their futures. He stated he would never work a day in his life to pay Fred Goldman, and he has never expressed any kind of condolence for Ron's death. It would seem to me, that if he had not killed him, it would behoove his better nature to express some kind of sympathy for their loss, but in his arrogance and pride, he said nothing.

I believe that says a lot about the man.

Pablo Fenjeves was disgusted by what he did. He regrets it to this day. Without disclosing how I know this, I'll just say you'll have to take my word for it that he wishes he'd never had anything to do with it. As for writing for The National Enquirer, being a writer myself, I know that we have all had jobs we've hated and took anyway just to have a paying job. While I've never had a job like that, I write for a controversial publication myself, [not The National Enquirer!] so I can most assuredly feel his pain.

It's a beautiful morning here and since I just finished the Darden book, I think I'm going to take a walk down to the library and see what I can get, if they have Paula Barberi's and also the Darnell Hunt book as well. I might break down and read Furhman's book. This is just too interesting not to!

Have an awesome weekend  

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

That walk to the library wound up being a good idea/bad idea thing......

My gall bladder and I are playing a game of,"Who can torture each other the longest?" and right now my gall bladder is winning  biggrin

The library didn't have Paula Barbieri's book, they didn't have Faye Resnick's book, hell, they didn't even have Mark Furman's book. They had all been checked out! See what I mean when I say people haven't moved on? They absolutely have not moved on. I got home and I felt pretty sick but just tried to ride the day out. So bad idea to go for a walk!

But  by night time though, I was pretty sick and had to go to the ER.  So while they are sticking needles in me and putting medication in me, I'm channel surfing and what should I come upon.....you guessed it, A&E's special, "OJ Speaks:The Secret Tapes". Two hours of the taped depositions that OJ did in pre-trial stages for the civil suit that the Goldman family brought against him when he was found not guilty in the criminal case.Good thing I wasn't going anywhere for the next 2 hours!    evileye

Now, this is where I know some people get confused. He didn't take the stand in the criminal case, but if he didn't take the stand in the civil case, he would automatically lose by default. So he was deposed by a lawyer named Dan Petrocelli and I was just laying there thinking what the hell! He was being shown photos of Nicole, obviously badly bruised and he talked his way around and around them as if he couldn't explain how that happened. In one, he had the unmitigated gall to say that her bruised face was make-up from a movie she was making. WTFF,yo.

AC Cowlings was also deposed and that was really interesting to me since my theory is that AC is the one who helped OJ do this thing. Petrocelli showed AC a photo of Nicole after being beaten [presumably by OJ] and he begins to sob, and asks to be excused. It is to much for him to bear, this  image of a broken woman who he loved and is now gone.

There were interviews with friends of Nicole, Keith Zlomzlowitch, Robin Greer, Kris Kardashian Jenner [God help us with that vile woman] and Faye Resnick but when I saw AC being deposed, that really did it for me. 

If I did it my ass. 

Links.

http://www.channelguidemagblog.com/index.php/2015/10/02/when-to-catch-reruns-of-o-j-speaks-and-the-secret-tapes-of-the-oj-case/

http://www.aetv.com/oj-speaks-the-hidden-tapes/pictures/oj-simpson-family-photos/nicole-and-oj-simpson-out-with-friends

 

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

annarocket wrote:

OJ wasn't in any fear of losing one thin dime due to the shredding of his reputation since after he lost the civil suit in which he was ordered to pay the Brown and Goldman families 33 million dollars he peaced out to Florida, where his NFL pension could not be touched. He didn't have to write that book to secure their futures. He stated he would never work a day in his life to pay Fred Goldman, and he has never expressed any kind of condolence for Ron's death. It would seem to me, that if he had not killed him, it would behoove his better nature to express some kind of sympathy for their loss, but in his arrogance and pride, he said nothing.

I believe that says a lot about the man.

---My copy of "If I Did It" just arrived, and in the prologue by Fenjves he states that his publisher's employees directly stated that the money would go to a corp. "owned and controlled" by OJ's children, answering his concern that the law forbade a criminal from making a profit on media related to his crime.  That pension had to go to pay lawyers, past and present, personal security, private grade and high schools for his kids, and so on, so it's not like he had tons of excess cash for the half million it takes to give 2 kids college educations these days.

--As for his attitude for Goldman, I do believe in interviews he (briefly) expressed sorrow for their loss, but really, I easily understand OJ's position.  Think about it...a mere five days after your lifes' love and mother of your children has been murdered, you are imprisoned (for what will eventually be a total of 16 months) for the crime, about which you know nothing.  While you are in jail, in miserable conditions, you are treated daily to the spectacle of watching the evening news, during which Fred Goldman among others calls you all sorts of vile names and openly declaring you guilty of the horrible crime.  After the verdict you assume you are entitled to being treated fairly, having been found under the eyes to be innocent of the murders.  You are in fact as innocent as Fred Goldman himself as you have been saying all along.

And yet, the drumbeat, lead by Mr. Goldman, continues.  You find you are unable to work, and while people in public treat you very well the media relays a very different story, as warped and hysterical as it was all those prior months.  You are later subjected to a nearly unprecedented retrial, under auspices of having caused civil damage to the families of the victims (the Ron's absentee mother being the first to file and join the ersatz gravy train).

So, you've lost everything...a loved one like Fred Goldman but along with that your freedom for over a year, your entire net worth for which you toiled for decades, and finally your good name--all for something you had nothing to do with.

Who wouldn't be bitter at the main instigator behind it all?  And even if he did make a public statement, what would Goldman's response be?  It would be yet another opportunity for him to rant and belittle and otherwise attack Simpson, clearly.

In any event, if you think he truly killed his beloved kids' mom in a manner in which they are very likely to find her shattered body after happily scampering down the stairs looking for Mommy--if anyone think's he's truly that low of a human being--then being mean or callous toward Fred Goldman would be a comparative trifle.

Pablo Fenjeves was disgusted by what he did. He regrets it to this day. Without disclosing how I know this, I'll just say you'll have to take my word for it that he wishes he'd never had anything to do with it. As for writing for The National Enquirer, being a writer myself, I know that we have all had jobs we've hated and took anyway just to have a paying job. While I've never had a job like that, I write for a controversial publication myself, [not The National Enquirer!] so I can most assuredly feel his pain.

---Okay, we've all been in some situation like that I suppose.  But then, how is that different from OJ's who is denied any other means of making a living?  If you look at everything from the assumption "he's guilty" then nothing he says or does can ever help him.  If you look at it neutrally, or from the other direction, the perspective changes a great deal.

It's a beautiful morning here and since I just finished the Darden book, I think I'm going to take a walk down to the library and see what I can get, if they have Paula Barberi's and also the Darnell Hunt book as well. I might break down and read Furhman's book. This is just too interesting not to!

Have an awesome weekend  

---Heh was freezing yesterday for some reason but I see the sunny SoCal sun is back today. ;)

I was going to mention one other source I recently found that is pretty interesting, an online site made by a retired engineer who watched the trial.  He had (he passed away in 2003) his own theory, that OJ was at the scene later but two others did the deed).  I don't buy that, but the site is full of many interesting details and much intriguing analysis as to the particulars of this strange crime (for example, he has several pages on Jill Shively and in fact exchanged several emails with her).

http://www.davewagner.com/OJ/oj/OJ.htm

Enjoy!

 


 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

There is a world of difference between innocent and being not guilty. He was found not guilty because there was reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, and I believe that doubt was because the crime scene was jacked by Furman among other errors, not the least of which was the interview OJ gave directly after getting home from Chicago. Never should have happened that way! Why in the hell Skip Taft let him do that is beyond me, but it turned into a blessing in disguise because it borderline violated his civil rights. OJ was not found "innocent". He was found "not guilty".

If OJ wanted to be treated as you suggest, he should have maintained a low profile, instead of the glad handing jokester he presented to the public. His behavior was reprehensible. And this is the same person who moaned and bewailed at Nicole's casket? I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. He was an actor, but he starred in "The Naked Gun" not "Othello". He did nothing to improve his image and his behavior infuriated Fred Goldman. I would have been a hater too, had I been that man. And then when he was charged in Las Vegas for the armed robbery for which he sits in prison now, well, a leopard can't change it's spots. OJ was used to getting what he wanted and he was going to take his things back. Only this time he got caught.

As for Pablo Fenjeves, I suppose you're right. But he didn't have to invent a story about how he could have slit his cocaine and sex addict wife's throat because he was a "battered husband". And that is what OJ calls himself. A "battered husband".

I can't wait for your take on "If I Did It". I'm waiting for the library to fulfill my requests for the 3 books I put on notice.

 

It's finally getting beautiful here in Phoenix!! I live for this time of the year. The air smells like heaven every day and every day is magical.

 

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

I was going to mention one other source I recently found that is pretty interesting, an online site made by a retired engineer who watched the trial.  He had (he passed away in 2003) his own theory, that OJ was at the scene later but two others did the deed).  I don't buy that, but the site is full of many interesting details and much intriguing analysis as to the particulars of this strange crime (for example, he has several pages on Jill Shively and in fact exchanged several emails with her).

http://www.davewagner.com/OJ/oj/OJ.htm

 

Enjoy!

 Oh man......I can tell I'm going to be obsessed with this link! Lots of great info!



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

The library fulfilled one of my requests, Faye Resnick's, "Nicole Brown Simpson: The Private Diary Of A Life Interrupted" [ISBN:0-7871-0339-X] and it isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. It got a lot of bad press on Amazon because of Resnick's allegation that she and Nicole engaged in a romantic relationship, but it hardly touches on that. It doesn't even go into a paragraph's worth of detail. It was a one time episode not a long drawn out affair, far from it.I'm not saying this book didn't exploit the whole subject of their friendship, but it wasn't as bad as everybody made it sound.

Resnick was not just Nicole's friend, according to her, she was a confidant of OJ as well, and was subjected to many of his rantings about how if he couldn't have Nicole, he'd kill her, and there were numerous conversations where she makes OJ sound like he was completely off his rocker. But this is kind of old news. OJ has been painted as a jealous and vindictive man who didn't want to let go of Nicole, and Resnick sounds like she was afraid of him and blames her relapse on cocaine and valium on the fact that she was just too stressed out and paranoid about the whole Nicole/OJ thing to cope with it sober. [Why would anyone do cocaine if they were paranoid? Doesn't cocaine make you paranoid?]

In the end,it is a very sad story by a woman who feels responsible for an event she couldn't have stopped had she wanted to.....and she like most people who knew and loved Nicole, feel the same way.



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:


Man you guys exported your heat over to LA, it's been 90-100 the last couple of days!

Got another interesting site for you:

www.angelfire.com/extreme3/ojisinnocent/

Now I don't think for one second this guy's thesis, that Kato did it, is remotely plausible. In fact it's absurd. However, he does have a few interesting observations about
the evidence.

That's the problem with all this OJ stuff--everytime I think something's probably worthless, I breakdown and read it and learn some other fact or plausible angle that helps piece together the puzzle.

I should say the site above is in a really crappy, hard to read format due to the bad print/background combination. However, I printed it out and it comes back just fine.

I counted yesterday and see I've read part or all of over 3 dozen books about the case, plus numerous online articles, websites etc.

Apparently I am madly obsessed with an issue I didn't give one wit about 2 years ago lol. ;) ;) ;)



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:


A few people have noted some rather odd things about Jason's behavior during events surrounding the murder.

Prosecutor Hank Goldberg in his book "The Prosecution Responds" mentions seeing Jason have a look of intense hatred and rage
right after the verdict, and that he could not understand how to interpret this. I wonder if this was a back-handed way of suggesting
he or some other prosecutors might have had some inkling of Jason's involvement. Petrocelli in *his* book says his partner straight out thout
it was Jason who done it.

Bill Dear also shows a picture of Jason at that moment. All his family members are beaming and crying in joy, but at first he just stares ahead unfocused,
with a severe scowl.

Afterward Linda Deustch, the AP reporter who everybody says gave the fairest accounting of the trial amongst the media, says she saw him double over in sobs
immediately after. (She to this day is very open-minded, publicly, about whether or not OJ did it).

There is also the odd instance during the viewing before Nicole's burial. OJ, his 4 kids etc. all approach the open casket, but Jason starts to hyperventilate (according
to Petrocelli) and then is seen to flee, crying, into the limo outside.

This is very strange behavior for someone who was perhaps a bit close, but not THAT close, to the victim.



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

Something else you might dig, some radio interviews of various people involved in the case:

losangeles.cbslocal.com/category/oj-20-years-later/

I was disappointed they didn't interview any of the jurors, even though you can find some of them pretty easily. I checked on facebook and found several, very easily.

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:


After two pro-pro books (Darden and Clark) I was going to grab a pro-J one (Cochran) but then decided I wanted to take a break from all this self-justifying whining from the attorneys. Clark's was the worst of those, blaming everybody for everything and showing her extreme bias, often unintentionally. I'll get to Cochran but so far all the lawyers' books are exercises in spinning events to let them look great.

Instead, I read "Madame Foreman" and was surprised to find the jurors seemed eminently reasonable, and not a bunch of "moon rocks" as labeled by Marcia. They showed clearly how they felt several prosecution witnesses lied or were in some way deceptive, and that Clark and Darden themselves seemed skittish about their case and lacked confidence--strange if they supposedly have a "mountain" of reliable evidence.

It's a pretty quick read though it begins a bit boring. Still, very enlightening I think. I'd avoided it because I read on Amazon.com reviews that it was terrible yada yada, but I should know by now I can't trust these opinions from so many biased people. I'm glad I read it.

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:

annarocket wrote:

There is a world of difference between innocent and being not guilty. He was found not guilty because there was reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, and I believe that doubt was because the crime scene was jacked by Furman among other errors, not the least of which was the interview OJ gave directly after getting home from Chicago. Never should have happened that way! Why in the hell Skip Taft let him do that is beyond me, but it turned into a blessing in disguise because it borderline violated his civil rights. OJ was not found "innocent". He was found "not guilty".

If OJ wanted to be treated as you suggest, he should have maintained a low profile, instead of the glad handing jokester he presented to the public. His behavior was reprehensible. And this is the same person who moaned and bewailed at Nicole's casket? I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. He was an actor, but he starred in "The Naked Gun" not "Othello". He did nothing to improve his image and his behavior infuriated Fred Goldman. I would have been a hater too, had I been that man. And then when he was charged in Las Vegas for the armed robbery for which he sits in prison now, well, a leopard can't change it's spots. OJ was used to getting what he wanted and he was going to take his things back. Only this time he got caught.

As for Pablo Fenjeves, I suppose you're right. But he didn't have to invent a story about how he could have slit his cocaine and sex addict wife's throat because he was a "battered husband". And that is what OJ calls himself. A "battered husband".

I can't wait for your take on "If I Did It". I'm waiting for the library to fulfill my requests for the 3 books I put on notice.

 

It's finally getting beautiful here in Phoenix!! I live for this time of the year. The air smells like heaven every day and every day is magical.

 

 


 

Yes but the thing is, you start the trial *presumed innocent*, and remain so until you are found guilty. 

No jury ever finds anyone "innocent". 

The fact is, from the first week Goldman had been blasting publicly about how OJ was guilty, beyond question.  As OJ pointed out in an interview, you'd think that having a jury deny his culpability should put just a bit, even if it's only ten percent, question in his mind.  But nope--instead he lauches an unprecedented attack using the civil courts.  

 

People slam Simpson for supposedly the high life and partying it up after the verdict, instead of "laying low".  Well, there are some problems with that I think.

First--if he's truly innocent, WHY SHOULD HE DO THIS?  He doesn't think he "got away with something", he thinks the truth came out in the verdict.  Skulking about trying to hide would seem more like the actions of a guilty man.  Instead, he's just trying to get back to some sense of normal life, perahps find a way to make a living after having his fortune ripped away for something he didn't do--and for this, he is attacked?  To him it makes no sense.

And, let's face it, the claims that he was living the life of an arrogant playboy in the wake of the verdict were made by the same lurid media who hounded everyone for months during the trial.  He was in prison for 16 months, for something he didn't do!  That's a long way from mourning his ex right after the murders.  Is he supposed to spend the rest of his life moping about Nicole?  He has a right to rebuild his life, but no one from the Goldmans on down wanted to give him that chance. 

 

OJ mentions that he played just one game of golf (easily verifiable if he had been lying) in the first weeks of the verdict, but what came out was a guy luxuriating on the links, arrogantly flaunting his freedom.  He tells the story of how he was sitting in his yard playing with his dog and doing business with his assistants one day at that time, and suddenly he notices a photographer clicking him over his fence.  the next day, the story reads about OJ supposedly living it up in luxury and again poking his eye at the public--when he's just sitting in his house!

There's simply nothing that man could have done after the trial to appease an angry public.  If he's quiet, he's a guilty man who knows he got away with murder.  If he's out anywhere, anything he does is spun as an outrage.  He can't win.

 

That interview after he came back from Chicago never made it into trial.  But let's look at it.

First--why does a guilty man do it?  He came back to LA immediately even though there was no insistence on the part of the cops.  He specifically told his lawyers he wanted to do it, to help assist if he could in finding who did it.  HE GIVES THEM A HUGE SAMPLE OF BLOOD!  Now, why on earth would a man who is guilty do that?  He would obviously know, if he did it, that the blood would directly implicate him.  If he stalls he would have plenty of time to do various legal shenanigans, negotiations, or even perhaps covertly flee the country, but he doesn't do that.  He just hands them the football.

Does that make sense?

Heck, if he wanted to, he could have flown out of the country at that point and gone to some place that doesn't extradite on the basis of our having the death penalty, and bribed whomever to stay there forever.  He had the cash and the opportunity.  But no, he comes straight back.

Also, people let the detectives off for supposedly not questioning him too harshly because they'd been up since 2am.  But how come they don't give Simpson the courtesy of the fact that people can get very fatigued after being up too long?  At the time of the interview OJ had just come from a week of whirlwind travel; been up the day of the murders at 5am; spent the whole day running around doing various things; gone to a recital; gone home and did various errands and packed, possibly nodding off briefly; hurried to a red-eye flight; perhaps got a tiny bit of sleep but not much on the flight; gone to his hotel room and before he could sleep much was notified of the murders; immediately hustles back to the airport, takes another flight, and heads home; and finally at 2pm the next day is interrogated.  So he's basically been up for 36 hours having just learned that a) the love of his life has been horribly murdered and b) he's obviously the guy they think did it.

Under those conditions, who among us would be clear-headed, especially about mundane details that we might not even remember when totally awak, alert and unstressed?

 

I'll be getting to the Fenjves book but it seems to me it's pretty much obviously totally fiction.  Simpson, again, did not write it (he's a horrible writer) and says he was only paid not to publicly dispute whatever Fenjves put on paper.  I think it was a stupid move but I can see a man like OJ sacrificing something that at that point had no value (his good name) for the sake of his kids, who even Fenjves says were the beneficiaries of the proceeds.

But I will def. read it!

I learned something somewhat poignant the other day.  You know what one of the things Simpson was after in that Vegas hotel room?

Pictures of his dead daughter, Aaren, who drowned when she was 2  years old in the pool at Rockingham.

 

As far as Faye...knowing her sordid history, she has basically zero cred in my book.  There is every reason to believe she made up the salacious parts of her book in order to sell it to the publisher.  I think she's really despicable, as Sydney found out when she learned "mommy's best friend wasn't so much of a friend after all" after that book came out.  OJ said often after the trial that many of the people being bandied about as "Nicole's best friends" were really sort of relative new-comers to her circle, part of the fast crowd she began to enjoy after her divorce.  In fact, OJ blamed that "fast crowd" indirectly for the murders, apparently thinking their cocaine use or dodgy acquaintances were behind it.  He regretted not being able to get Nicole away from them.

In contrast, Kato, OJ's ex Margaurite, and her true best friend Cora Fishmann all had book deals dissolve, apparently because the publishers insisted they put in parts declaring that OJ had beat his wives.  Also, none of OJ's paramours came forward to say he attacked them, even though they stood to make a fortune.

 

There were so many media-born mischaracterizations of the facts in this case, I've learned I simply have to evaluate everything on my own, and try to be as objective as possible.  That's made a little easier since I thought for a long time he was guilty.

 

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

Sorry! This is supposed to be the last weekend of the year that we see 90 degree temps and I for one will be saying a special thank you to my Creator! The Phoenix weather is my kryptonite.  evileye

 

"People slam Simpson for supposedly the high life and partying it up after the verdict, instead of "laying low".  Well, there are some problems with that I think."

 

You've got a valid point, and I have to say, nobody should be expected to join a convent or mourn forever, but it's hard for me to believe that his legal team didn't advise him to tone it down. OJ was well known for going out and being extravagant. This is not an exaggeration, and the media, as annoying and overblown as it is, has captured OJ in many unguarded moments behaving as though he hadn't a care in the world before the Goldman/Brown civil suit. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, I believe my Nana used to say. he did not owe the public anything at that point, and didn't need to "appease" them but it sure as hell would've behooved him if he had been a little more discreet, considering what was coming. Maybe he should have thought of that before going to Las Vegas and waving a firearm around while wasted, demanding his "stuff" back.

"I learned something somewhat poignant the other day.  You know what one of the things Simpson was after in that Vegas hotel room?

Pictures of his dead daughter, Aaren, who drowned when she was 2  years old in the pool at Rockingham."

From this link below, that covers the charges and case in Clark County, it makes no mention of ANY personal effects of that nature. They are described as sports memorabeila. I can't find one single source that lists personal effects to the nature that included photos of Aaren. I read he told Yale Galanter that there were childhood photos of HIM [see link #2] but not Aaren or anything relating to his children with Nicole. And according to testimony in the first link, OJ had been drinking when this crime took place. If I thought someone has photos of my deceased daughter, the last thing I would be is inebriated and armed going about getting them back. Where did you read that? Link me up, i want to see it.. 

  link #1  https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/High-profile-cases/07C237890-4-5046089_DECN_Decision_and_Order[1].pdf

  link #2  http://my-stuff.tripod.com/oj.html

You misread me! I'm actually on OJ's side concerning that interview he gave the cops when he got back from Chicago! Never should have happened! That's why I say Skip Taft did him a HUGE disservice when he let OJ talk after getting the news that Ron and Nicole had passed, flying home and then being subjected to all that interrogation. There's no other word for it, it was a high pressure, balls out, we-think-you-murdered-her railroading. Now, I do think he did it.....but there are laws and one of them is you have the right to remain silent. Another is anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. He's just damned lucky that none of that was. He was found not guilty.

Faye's book was a cash out. With friends like that, who needs enemies? I'm curious as to what the Kardashians think of her now, since she name drops them so hard in that tabloid thing she calls a "memoir". 

I'm going to read Paula's book and Furman's as well, but Marcia Clark is a little bitter for this girl's taste.....I don't think I want to sit through her version of why she couldn't stick it to OJ, and it seems like she really had an axe to grind. What do you think? It didn't seem like it was just about justice for her, but I could be completely off the mark.

Hope you are having a great Sunday and enjoying this as much as I am. I do so love an articulate and well read gentleman. Thank you!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

Last week being the 20 year anniversary of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, CNN ran this piece about what they called "The trial of the century and first reality show." Man, they aren't kidding. And I don't know what it says about all of us that we are still watching. But the reason I'm still watching and reading is because no one has been held accountable, and in my mind, noone is going to be because of something called double jeopardy. Many people think Jason did it, and if it turns out he did, well, I'll be the first one to stand up and say wow, I was wrong this whole time.

It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something.

Nevertheless, CNN ran this and it's got video and a slideshow for you guys who are watching, especially you Jules, even though you aren't posting along with us, you always have something smart to tell me when you call. But your theory is wack biggrin

Have a look and show CNN some

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/13/us/oj-simpson-trial/index.html



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

Here's what you get for screwing around on You Tube.....

I was looking for some true crime and and found a link to the A&E special, OJ Speaks:The Hidden Tapes. The night I watched it, I was in the ER, sick with a needle in my arm, out of it [duh!] so i didn't get as much out of it as I did watching it now.

A couple of things I didn't realize: in a criminal trial to be convicted of responsibility of someone's death, a jury has to agree 12-0. But in a civil trial, there is something called "a preponderance of the evidence" and you only have to have 9-12 agree that the person is liable. Big difference there.

There were a bunch of different lawyers invested in this! Not just for OJ and the Goldmans but Ron's birth mother, Sharon Rufo and the Brown family too. The depositions weren't just in Los Angeles, either. Faye Resnick had to be deposed in NYC, for what reason,I've no clue because they dragged her back to L.A. for the actual trial. Seeing her sit there and say how she heard Sydney tell Nicole she saw OJ hit her when she was pregnant was tremendously disturbing.

I've long thought that crime scene was contaminated but I didn't know that Ron and Nicole's blood was in both the Bronco on the console and the socks at the foot of OJ's bed. What a mess this all is.

OJ's whole story that he never got Paula 's voice mail that she broke up with him was totally shot down with verified proof from records from his voice mail service. I always thought he was lying about that, and Paula's deposition had more credibility than I do when I talk about what I ate for dinner last night. I really want to read her book now.

We all know how I feel about the Goldman family because of how I wrote the editorial, "The Last Days Of Nicole Brown Simpson" and how they lived in my town, I'm not going to retell that story now. By the last 20 minutes, I was crying. I can't imagine losing my child. Whoever did this, if not in this life, someday a time will come for you to answer.

Here's your link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G31yDmnyiok



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2246
Date:

Next week FX TV will bring us "The People Vs. OJ Simpson", a made for cable, 10 part docu-drama about the trial of OJ Simpson. I'd like it a lot better if it focused more on the actual crime, and the victims but they might shock me and do a good job covering that. I guess we'll find out. This has gotten an insane amount of publicity. It's not even just an annarocket thing. My kid nephew, who hosted me at his house over the holidays, expressed the desire to watch this, and I was stunned since he's never expressed the desire to read my blog or the magazine I work for. I think this thing has just taken on a life of its own.

Like a deadly disease.Maybe the plague. Anyway, until next week, we've got this from People Magazine/MSN News.

OJ's former business manager Nick Pardo, says OJ is having a hard time behind the walls of Nevada's Lovelock Correctional Center. Poor diet has contributed to excessive weight gain that has put tremendous strain on his two artificial knees and diabetes. Pardo describes him as a broken man and "a recluse" who has shut out everyone, even family members. In addition, he is described as being delusional, having been seen mumbling to himself,and not understanding the reality of the situation. Pardo "has tried to explain to him that some people still think he's a murderer and he'll say, 'I don't understand why. I was found not guilty.'" Unreal.

Here's your link. No commentary needed from this girl.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/oj-simpsons-life-behind-bars-hes-a-broken-man-says-former-business-manager/ar-BBoRlTa

 



__________________

....come death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so!

«First  <  1 2 3 4  >  Last»  | Page of 4  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard