OJ's Daughter Calls Cops on Dad the Murderer

[subgenius]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/simpson_daughter030130.html
Its only a matter of time before this butcher blows up again.
Outrageous that he has custody. Hope the authorities are able to protect the kids.

[LucienVanImpe]

When they arrived, the girl said she and her father "got into an argument over family issues," according to the one-page police report.
Those 'family issues' wouldn't be the fact that her father killed her mother by slashing her throat, would it now?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LucienVanImpe

Those 'family issues' wouldn't be the fact that her father killed her mother by slashing her throat, would it now?
Now that the poor girl is grown and has a mind of her own.......

Sounds very much to me like the chickens have come home to roost. :D

Almost makes you want to believe in karma, doesn't it?

[Mike B.]

I am sure the reason he wasn't home when the police arrived is that he was looking for the "real killers."

You know those "Columbian drug lords."

After all didn't he say he would devote the rest of his life to catching the "real killers."

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Mike B.
I am sure the reason he wasn't home when the police arrived is that he was looking for the "real killers."

You know those "Columbian drug lords."

After all didn't he say he would devote the rest of his life to catching the "real killers."

:rolleyes:

And he'll scour every golf course in the world until he finds them!

[Crossbow]

OJ Simpson, the Lizzie Borden of our day!

[LucienVanImpe]

At least Mel Ignatow had the guts to admit guilt after being aquitted for killing his fiancée, but only after photos emerged that displayed him committing the act. His ex-girlfriend took the pictures and even testified against him in the first trial, but apparently the jurors thought he looked respectable.

Double jeopardy saved him, but he was nailed on perjury. Peculiar case.

http://www.storyhousepro.com/jeopardy.html
http://www.thelouisvillechannel.com/news/742310/detail.html

[jayrev]

Subgenious, you're an OJ bashing troll. :D

[subgenius]

Originally posted by jayrev
Subgenious, you're an OJ bashing troll. :D
Don't yell at me, I'm already being trashed in another thread.:p

[Ian Osborne]

Seen OJ's e-mail address? It's...

SLASH-SLASH-BACKSLASH-BACKSLASH-DELETE 2-ESCAPE

[Tmy]

Give Oj some credit! If I ever called 911 on my dad and screamed at him that he was a "loser", I would be soooooooo dead.

Lousy back talking brat!

[Jade]

What astounds me to this day, is that I am in awe of people's stupidity regarding Simpson innocence. :confused:

[Doctor X]

What? Simpson is guilty of double homicide?

I thought he just "liable. . . ."

--J. "Did I miss the Easter Bunny?" D.

[Jade]

Here is a reminder of the carnage he inflicted upon two people. http://vatican.rotten.com/simpson/ {very graphic}

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Jade
Here is a reminder of the carnage he inflicted upon two people. http://vatican.rotten.com/simpson/ {very graphic}
Not pretty, but lest we forget.:(

[subgenius]

Hope we hear a (good) follow up to this story.:confused:

[skepticism]

Therein lies the real danger of "science" and scientific experts in court, deciding people's life or death.

The usual Randi group think OJ is guilty because some scientist testified at the criminal trial, and the jury didn't buy their testimony.

We just had new forensic research showing the usual police investigation of arsons was assuming incorrect views of how fires spread. We just had DNA overturn a conviction of a man found guilty based on fingerprint evidence. Those "scientists" who testify about the certainity of fingerprint matches with latents, turned out to be wrong. No one has done serious studies on the error rates for fingerprint matches.

If this were just some academic debate about what happened to the earth, evolution or Creation, millions of years ago or 6,000 years ago, it would all be harmless debate. But we're talking about people's lives. The uncritical acceptance of standard "science" and "experts" in courtrooms puts innocent people in prison and on death row.

Meanwhile, anyone who questions the "science" is labeled an anti-science quack. We had a chemist who got tired of doing lab tests, it took up so much time. So it was easier for him to dry lab the results, just write up the reports as if a test were done, and reach the conclusions the police wanted. We had the FBI lab results in Timothy McVeigh's case, finding cocaine, because they thought they were supposed to find a drug, as if it were a drug case.

OJ Simpson had Mark Furhman, the racist police officer who liked to manufacture evidence and lie on the stand, because he's trying to help convict people he "knows" are guilty. So he sprinkles some blood of OJ on the crime scene, sprinkles some of the victims' blood in his car.

When the evidence is contaminated, when we have too many people ready to believe any "scientists" who testify, we're very lucky to have a country with a jury system, where lay people can reject "science."

This is the real danger of "science," the uncritical acceptance of "experts" when a real practical issue is involved. If we're dealing with when an ape evolved into a human in the distant past, no one really cares. When we're dealing with life and death issues, everyone cares.

OJ was innocent. Even the white civil jurors said had the standard of proof been reasonable doubt, they agreed there was reasonable doubt. the nearly all female criminal jury found OJ innocent.

Mark Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment. When you lie, and manufacture evidence in a criminal case, with a potential death penalty, that's a crime. Why isn't Fuhrman being prosecuted for manufacturing evidence.

The Hebrew Bible may be archaic, a collection of myths, but it had one tiny little law that is so different from American law. If you made a false accusation, the penalty, in the Hebrew text, was the same penalty for the charge you falsely accused the other person of doing. It makes sense. But in American law, you can falsely accuse anyone of anything, and at most you get some minor penalty. Women falsely accuse men of child molest to get custody, and almost nothing ever happens to them. Mark Furhman can put people in the electric chair, by false accusations, and he collects royalties from books on his investigations. I believe Fuhrman belongs on death row, not OJ. But you never see white people complaining about Fuhrman, they like the idea of false evidence used to convinct those they "know" are guilty.

DNA is nice science. It has shown endless people were falsely convicted. But no one goes back to see how the original false conviction occurred. There was a prosecutor, police, and forensic "scientists" in the original trial, all claiming "science" proved the defendant guilty. Then comes some new science, and they let the guy go after 20 years in prison. Maybe the problem isn't science or racism, so much as it's an uncritical acceptance of standard science.

you get the same thing in child paternity suits. A woman had a kid, and it could be or a plausible claim could be made that a particular male is the father, the father has money, so a lawyer gets a scientist to testify that that male is the father. They use Bayesian analysis, developed by a monk to determine probabilities using a number of assumptions. No doubt Randi types like these scientists, who use a priori assumptions, to find males the father of children who later turn out to look a lot like some other male in the woman's life.

"Science" is not whatever our society admires, or the academic experts who use the title scientist in their job description. Deference to experts is not a scientific method, it's submission to authoritarianism. White people like doing that if it leads to believing OJ is guilty.

OJ is probably not guilty, because he risked everything to go to trial, turning down even exploring a plea agreement to save himself, at a time when the evidence looked so bad his attorney Shapiro tried to get a plea, without OJ's authorizaiton.

Most criminal defendants may be guilty. Whites trust the police to make good arrests. But most criminal defendants who risk everything, including their life, at a trial, turning down opportunities for a plea agreement, raise serious questions as to their innocence. Then throw in a racist evidence tampering police detective like Fuhrman who takes the Fifth, you can't just conclude that OJ is guilty and trot out "science" as the reason.

[Dave1001]

I think most would acknowledge that OJ only seems more guilty as the years go on. He doesn't behave like there's someone out there who really killed his wife that can clear his name. That's not proo of guilt, but it doesn't inspire conifedence in me in his claims of innocence.

[mrfreeze]

You know, assuming for one second that Mark Furman did in fact frame OJ, how the hell did he get some of his blood to "sprinkle at the crime scene"? I was rather young when the case took place, so if this scenario was covered at the time I apologize.

[Zep]

Actually, if I understand it correctly, making false accusations is indeed a criminal offense under most western jurisdictions, and can be dealt severe punishment.

So there goes your whole basis of your rant, feller...

[gumboot]

Interesting rant...

To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say.

I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period.

These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use.

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.

-Gumboot

[Darat]

Interesting rant...

To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say.

I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period.

These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use.

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.

-Gumboot

I agree - there is however the fact that Simpson was found "liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown." (O.J. Simpson) in a civil court.

[RandFan]

To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say.

I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period.

These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use.

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.

-Gumboot Innocent until proven guilty is legal mater. We are actually allowed to form our own opinion. If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?

I don't have to suspend my disbelief in Simpson's case or any case. The man is guilty.

[gumboot]

I agree - there is however the fact that Simpson was found "liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown." (O.J. Simpson) in a civil court.


I put about as much credibility in American Civil Courts as I do in my neighbour at my previous place of residence.

He was a drug dealer.

I've always felt there was something repugnant about the civil court system.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Innocent until proven guilty is legal mater. We are actually allowed to form our own opinion. If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?

I don't have to suspend my disbelief in Simpson's case or any case. The man is guilty.


So you don't believe in the value of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Okay. I do. Even when it's inconvenient.

-Gumboot

[Darat]

I put about as much credibility in American Civil Courts as I do in my neighbour at my previous place of residence.



Based on what?



He was a drug dealer.


I hope he was convicted in a criminal court... ;)


I've always felt there was something repugnant about the civil court system.

-Gumboot

Based on what?

[gumboot]

Based on what?

Based on the entire concept.



I hope he was convicted in a criminal court... ;)


Good call.

Randfan said above:

"If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?"

I did see my neighbour dealing drugs, so I feel justified regarding him as a drug dealer. Of course I might be mistaken. I think if you actually witnessed a crime, you have grounds for presuming guilt. I was not aware that anyone here at JREF personally witnessed Simpson kill anyone. (I could be mistaken though, there's all sorts of interesting people here... ;))



Based on what?

Based on the concept. I find it repugnant that you can sue someone for a criminal act after they have been found not-guilty. I understand Americans quite enjoy it. Fair enough, it's their country. :)

-Gumboot

[fuelair]

Simpson was found not guilty for racist/political reasons. Would be wonderful if we had A)not proven as a possibility(like Scottish system on that aspect) and B)removal of the double jeopardy thing in any case where conclusive evidence was found after the Not Guilty by reason of we don't like the cops/real ,but mistaken, Not Guilty - especially if that evidence was not available previously because it was hidden by the murderer, his lawyer or any representative/agent of either.

[ponderingturtle]

Interesting rant...

To be fair... I believe in the rule of law. I believe the rule of law is paramount to a safe and fair society. Have all the corrupt politicians and police you want, but the court is the final say.

I do not believe in trial by media - something that is becoming increasingly common. I do not believe in trial by armchair.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law. Period.

These are fundamental principles upon which society is based. They are not things that can be discarded at will. There will be mistakes, certainly. Guilty people walk free. Innocents go to prison. No system is perfect. But nonetheless, this is the system we use, and I believe it is the right system to use.

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.

-Gumboot


Impossible, as you can not be retried for the same crime. It can't happen now no matter what comes up, what he does or anything.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Anyone who thinks OJ didn't do it is a moron. Period.

[ponderingturtle]

Based on the concept. I find it repugnant that you can sue someone for a criminal act after they have been found not-guilty. I understand Americans quite enjoy it. Fair enough, it's their country. :)


And lets not even get into how wrong it is to take my stuff just because I was responsible for hurting you.

The whole reason that it makes sense is that you have a beyond a reasonable doubt as the requirement, meaning you need to be very very sure that someone did it, while the other has a preponderance of the evidence as the standard, so you need to be 51% sure that it happened. Because of this, you can be found not guilty and responceible if the jury is convinced to exactly the same degree in both cases.

So you also think that the guy who has been in jail for 12 years for non compliance with a divorce court decision is also repugnant.

[Mephisto]

Innocent until proven guilty is legal mater. We are actually allowed to form our own opinion. If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?

I don't have to suspend my disbelief in Simpson's case or any case. The man is guilty.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are things commonly regarding as truth that most of us know aren't always true.

Your government cares about you personally,

Agent Orange won't hurt you.

We know where they are, they're north, south, east and west of Tikrit.

You won't get pregnant if I pull-out.

OJ is innocent.

Bad people get what they deserve.

[Monkey Napoleon]

Funny you should say that, ponderingturtle...

I also agree with RandFan wholeheartedly. This man is guilty as hell. In fact, google "If I did it". You should get a number of returns that are news articles pertaining to a book announced last month written by Simpson. His publisher is repeatedly quoted as saying that it's his confession. It's since been cancelled due to public outcry.

"The Juice" is a prime example of just how much badness one man can have in his heart. He murdered those people in cold blood, lost a civil case worth thirty-three point something million dollars (which he hasn't paid a dime of, btw), wrote a book to profit from the frenzy his admission of guilt would inevitably cause, and allready had lawyers working on a loophole to protect said book earnings from seizure at the time of it's announcement.

This is a baaaad man.

[Monkey Napoleon]

Based on the entire concept.


You obviously don't understand the American Civil Court then. It's very true that the system is often manipulated by repugnant people, and sometimes judges make questionable rulings, but you couldn't possibly be insinuating that there is no such thing as a case in which monetary damages should be awarded. It's meant to keep the money and criminal sides of justice somewhat seperate, which I can't concieve of any situation where that is a bad idea.

[BPSCG]

Even if he was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, he is guilty of being excrement wrapped in skin.

To claim you were innocent of your wife's vicious murder, then to be able to even contemplate the idea of making money off speculation over how you could have pulled it off bespeaks reptilian cold-bloodedness. Any sane person should beware of getting within a hundred yards of him.

[alfaniner]

I don't know if his kids are legal adults yet, but I think it's only a matter of time before they are old enough to realize that this is the man that killed their mother, and say or do something about it.

[Mephisto]

I think it's only a matter of time before they are old enough to realize that this is the man that killed their mother, and say or do something about it.

I wonder what the chances of that ending up in violence are? :(

[hgc]

I wonder what the chances of that ending up in violence are? :(
One can hope that the realization will be coupled with the sense to avoid the person known to have already murdered a close family relation.

[Nancarrow]

So you don't believe in the value of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Okay. I do. Even when it's inconvenient.

-Gumboot

The value of the concept is its place within a court of law. The JREF forum is not a court of law.

There'd be something very wrong with the legal system if we could put OJ away merely because RandFan (and I, and most other people) say he's guilty.

But we can't. And the system doesn't. And the wonderful values of freedom, democracy, liberty, justice... law... excuse me (sniff) (wipes tear from eye) do not evaporate when someone on a message board says 'he's guilty'.

"Guilty until proven innocent" is a great concept for the courtroom. Leave it where it belongs.

[slingblade]

So you don't believe in the value of "innocent until proven guilty"?

What, in a universal, no matter what, in perpetuity kind of way?

No. That would be illogical. Fallacious. Naive. Erroneous.

X number of people are in prison right now who are actually innocent of the crimes for which they have been convicted.

X number of people who were actually guilty but got off on some technicality are walking the streets freely right now.

See, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean if they can't prove you guilty, you must be innocent. It also doesn't mean that if they find you guilty, you must be guilty.

It's simply an expression of how the court must look upon you as you come before it. Besides, a verdict of "not guilty" can very easily mean only that the evidence or procedures were faulty, and can have nothing whatever to do with your actual guilt.

I'm not a court. I'm just a person who holds many opinions. I don't have to look on OJ as innocent just because that was the verdict.

I don't know if the man did it or not, but my opinion has always leaned heavily toward "probably guilty."

[fuelair]

And that is why I like the Scottish "Not Proven"

[Mike B.]

Anyone who thinks OJ didn't do it is a moron. Period.

Ditto.

I am sorry, but if you really look at the evidence, it is hard to see how he is innocent.

[RandFan]

So you don't believe in the value of "innocent until proven guilty"? Of course I do. That has nothing to do with my point. I don't have to pretend to believe something that isn't true.

Okay. I do. Even when it's inconvenient. That's good, thanks, would you answer the question?

If you witnessed a murder and the defendant was found not guilty would you pretend it never happened? Would you pretend the victim did not die or would you just blank out the face of the perpetrator in your mind?

One can be "not guilty" and still have committed the crime. There is nothing in the law that says I can't use my reason and logic to arrive at a conclusion.

Simpson killed his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman. I hold that belief provisionally unless and until better evidence comes along.

[RandFan]

Randfan said above:

"If you saw someone murder another and that person got off would you then pretend that you didn't see event?"

I did see my neighbour dealing drugs, so I feel justified regarding him as a drug dealer. Of course I might be mistaken. I think if you actually witnessed a crime, you have grounds for presuming guilt. I was not aware that anyone here at JREF personally witnessed Simpson kill anyone. (I could be mistaken though, there's all sorts of interesting people here... ;)) Thank you for answering the question. Please forgive my previous post for accusing you of not doing so.

So, we have established that it is possible to believe someone is guilty without them being found guilty, right?

Why is eyewitness testimony the only valid evidence? Where did that come from? Are you saying that we cannot use logic and reason to come to a conclusion?

[Hawk one]

You know, I don't really trust the evidence they laid out that much. I mean, consider the people responsible for gathering the evidence (one of the most racist bunch of cops in the Western world), led by a person who's said such things as:

"If I would have arrested the son of a b****, I would have killed him. If I ever see the son of a b****, and we're alone, I would kill him."

"Most real good policemen understand that they would just love to take certain people and just take them to the alley and just blow their brains out."

"We stopped the choke because a bunch of n******s have a bunch of those organisations in South End and because all n*****rs wer choked out and killed - twelve in ten years. Extraordinary, isn't it?"

"Westwood is gone. The n*****s have discovered it."

"First thing, anything out of a n*****'s mouth for the first five of six sentences is a f*****g lie... You keep choking him until he tells the truth. You know, it's kind of funny, but a lot of policemen will get a kick out of it."

"We basically got impatient with him being so f****g stupid... So we just went the "scenic route" to the station... Dana goes "No blood, Mark." "No problem, not even any marks, Dana." Just body shots. Did you ever try to find a bruise on a n*****r? It's pretty tough, huh?"

These are all quotes from what Mark Fuhrman said in the taped conversations with screenwriter Laura McKinney. You could hear them live on the day they were played for Judge Ito, who was to decide if the jury should be able to listen to them. The judge decided that the jury should not, so they never heard it. And apart from the live report, no newscast played this in full.

So, seriously, how can anyone trust such a person to lead a fair and unbiased investigation? How can anyone trust a police department that not only employs such a person, but also puts him forward on high-profile cases? How?

[hgc]

You know, I don't really trust the evidence they laid out that much. I mean, consider the people responsible for gathering the evidence (one of the most racist bunch of cops in the Western world), led by a person who's said such things as:

"If I would have arrested the son of a b****, I would have killed him. If I ever see the son of a b****, and we're alone, I would kill him."

"Most real good policemen understand that they would just love to take certain people and just take them to the alley and just blow their brains out."

"We stopped the choke because a bunch of n******s have a bunch of those organisations in South End and because all n*****rs wer choked out and killed - twelve in ten years. Extraordinary, isn't it?"

"Westwood is gone. The n*****s have discovered it."

"First thing, anything out of a n*****'s mouth for the first five of six sentences is a f*****g lie... You keep choking him until he tells the truth. You know, it's kind of funny, but a lot of policemen will get a kick out of it."

"We basically got impatient with him being so f****g stupid... So we just went the "scenic route" to the station... Dana goes "No blood, Mark." "No problem, not even any marks, Dana." Just body shots. Did you ever try to find a bruise on a n*****r? It's pretty tough, huh?"

These are all quotes from what Mark Fuhrman said in the taped conversations with screenwriter Laura McKinney. You could hear them live on the day they were played for Judge Ito, who was to decide if the jury should be able to listen to them. The judge decided that the jury should not, so they never heard it. And apart from the live report, no newscast played this in full.

So, seriously, how can anyone trust such a person to lead a fair and unbiased investigation? How can anyone trust a police department that not only employs such a person, but also puts him forward on high-profile cases? How?
And if Mark Fuhrman's actions and evidence were somehow pivotal in the case, you might have a point here. But there was so much more evidence for guilt than anything related to Fuhrman that it doesn't introduce any doubt into my calculations.

[davefoc]

Hawk one,
I disagree with your post in two ways:
1. The things you quoted were from Furhman playing the role of a racist cop is some sort of creative writing session with a woman. It is not proof that he was a racist. And it is even less proof that if he was a racist his police investigations were influenced by that.
2. I doubt that there has ever been a case where the circumstantial evidence more strongly pointed to guilt that than this. I think the strength of the evidence in this case was actually much stronger than in many cases dependent on eye witness testimony of the crime. Furhman was in no position to affect most of the evidence in this case.

If there was the slightest doubt about the guilt of this man from the evidence presented at the criminal trial the doubt should have been eliminated with the details that came out about the BrunoMagli (spelling?) shoes at the civil trial.

You have gone down the path of many OJ is guilty deniers. You made a decision about his innocence based on your analysis of one aspect of the evidence against Simpson. There are many other similar ideas out there from people who claim to be knife fight experts to people who claim to be dog behavior experts that use their alleged specialized knowledge to come to a conclusion that contradicts the overwhelming evidence in this case. The fact that people do stuff like this just seems to be part of human nature where we search out our own unique views.

[Hawk one]

hgc: And this evidence was collected by the LAPD, the already established untrustworthy bunch of of police force, of which Fuhrman is -not- really that outstanding in his extremism?

And what exact real evidence again? No witnesses of the actual murder. No murder weapon was ever found. No murder clothes was ever found. Well, a couple of gloves were found, but they were tight-fitting, and as such I have a hard time imagining that someone would actually just lose them. OJ's house was spotless. And a tiny bit of OJ's blood at the scene, discovered after some blood for a lab sample test goes missing...

All in all, it paints a strange picture. It tells me that we're supposed to believe that OJ is an excellent planner, managing to accomplish a murder without any witnesses, and get rid of almost all the evidence, in such a clever fashion it's still not found... But on the other hand, he's so incompetent that he loses his gloves one after another while doing the job...

[hgc]

hgc: And this evidence was collected by the LAPD, the already established untrustworthy bunch of of police force, of which Fuhrman is -not- really that outstanding in his extremism?How is the LAPD established as untrustworthy? Because Fuhrman is one of them? Fuhrman isn't even established as untrustworthy in terms of conducting a murder investigation.

And what exact real evidence again? No witnesses of the actual murder. No murder weapon was ever found. No murder clothes was ever found. Well, a couple of gloves were found, but they were tight-fitting, and as such I have a hard time imagining that someone would actually just lose them. OJ's house was spotless. And a tiny bit of OJ's blood at the scene, discovered after some blood for a lab sample test goes missing...

All in all, it paints a strange picture. It tells me that we're supposed to believe that OJ is an excellent planner, managing to accomplish a murder without any witnesses, and get rid of almost all the evidence, in such a clever fashion it's still not found... But on the other hand, he's so incompetent that he loses his gloves one after another while doing the job...
No, OJ didn't plan it well. He got caught. He left a trail of evidence a mile wide. So, he dumped a knife. Not hard to do. No witnesses? I wouldn't say that. Goldman stumbled on to the scene, but OJ managed to kill the only witness too.

[RandFan]

All in all, it paints a strange picture. It tells me that we're supposed to believe that OJ is an excellent planner, managing to accomplish a murder without any witnesses, and get rid of almost all the evidence, in such a clever fashion it's still not found... But on the other hand, he's so incompetent that he loses his gloves one after another while doing the job... I don't think it is a strange picture at all. You are doing what CTers do. You are finding anomolies and making something significant of them.

There were eyewitneses. Not to the murder but testimony that put OJ at the crime scene. Unfortunatly those witnesses spoke to the media and in this case that put their testimony in doubt for the trial because defense could make so much of it. I wish they had used the testimony but who knows?

You know, I've done this thing so many times I'm not certain how much time I want to put into it. I had bookmarks of all of the great web sites but those were lost a few years ago. I guess I might be up for it again. Ok. I'll search this site for my links.

There is a lot of evidence and the CT type claims mostly evaporate on close scrutiny. I say mostly because the socks are the one good piece of evidence that cops tried to frame a guilty man. Though there is some controversy on this point. FWIW, of all the books I've read on the subject Furmans is the best. I was convinced that he was a racist but after examining all of the facts I no longer see him as simply a racist. Clearly he had some problems but it is much more complicated than that. He has a mixed record but most of it actually exhonerates him.


DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson's Bronco revealed traces of Simpson's, Nicole's, and Ronald Goldman's blood.
Simpson's hair was found on Goldman's shirt even though Simpson claimed not to have been at the home and never to have met Goldman.
DNA analysis of blood on the gloves was proven to be a mixture of Simpson's, Nicole's, and Ronald Goldman's. The gloves also contained particles of Goldman's hair and carpet fibers from Simpson's Bronco.
Arrest records indicate that Simpson had been charged with the beating of his wife Nicole. Photos of Nicole's bruised and battered face emerged. Simpson was sentenced to 3 years of community service for the crime.
Police discovered that the dome light in the Bronco had been removed. A search of the vehicle revealed the light was carefully placed under the passenger seat and was in good working condition.
Puzzling blood smears on the passenger floorboard indicated that Simpson may have purposely removed the light and placed it under the seat before the murders (assuming he had indeed murdered Brown Simpson and Goldman). Then after the murders he may have unsuccessfully tried to find it to put it back in the socket. Police on stakeouts routinely remove the dome lights from their vehicles to avoid detection when the car doors are opened.
It was discovered that one set of keys to Nicole Brown Simpson's home were missing. She had indicated to several family members and friends that she feared Simpson had stolen them to gain entry into her home. The keys were later found in Simpson's home.
Paula Barbieri indicated that she had broken up with Simpson the day of the murders. She indicated he seemed very disturbed at the news. Phone records proved that Simpson attempted to contact her shortly before the murders from his Bronco's cellular phone.
The left-hand glove found at Nicole's home and the right-hand glove found at O.J.'s home proved to be a match. They were also proven to be Simpson's size. Even though Simpson claimed under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing these exact gloves.
Bloody footprints in Nicole's home were identified as being made from a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes are expensive and rare. The size 12 prints match Simpson's shoe size. Simpson claims under oath that he does not own such shoes and in fact indicates that he thinks they "are ugly." A photograph was introduced showing Simpson wearing the exact shoes at an NFL football game. Simpson claimed under oath that the photo is a forgery and is backed up by an expert witness. Later, another photo taken by a different source, also showed Simpson wearing the same shoes at another NFL football game.
Friends and family indicated that Nicole claimed that Simpson had been stalking her. She said that everywhere she went she saw Simpson there watching her. She was afraid because Simpson had already told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.

[RandFan]

As to the CT. To suggest that a CT was constructed ad hoc from the start is one of the most easily attacked notions of the entire ordeal.

The police did not know where OJ was or if he had an alibi. OJ could have been in another country for all they knew.
Assuming that OJ was not guilty the police had no way of knowing if the real killer would be caught or confess. Hell, they didn't know if the guy was in a booking station at that very moment.Innocent people are convicted of murder. It is not impossible. Innocent people are framed by the police, also not impossible. However the police usually wait a day or two for the fog to clear before they start railroading innocent people. In the beginning of an investigation there are just too many unknowns, unless of course one of the officers knew who was the murderer and knew the details of the killing but even then they still didn't know if OJ had a rock solid alibi. Unless the conspiracy was prior to the murders and someone was tracking OJ's whereabouts but this gets into 9/11 CT territory. Possible but not one shred of evidence to back it up.

[Regnad Kcin]

Therein lies the real danger of "science" and scientific experts in court, deciding people's life or death.

The usual Randi group think OJ is guilty because some scientist testified at the criminal trial, and the jury didn't buy their testimony...

<snip>Resurrecting a nearly 4-year-old thread? Interesting.

As to your post, I think your critical thinking skills need a little work.

Welcome to the forum.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As to the CT. To suggest that a CT was constructed ad hoc from the start is one of the most easily attacked notions of the entire ordeal.

The police did not know where OJ was or if he had an alibi. OJ could have been in another country for all they knew.
Assuming that OJ was not guilty the police had no way of knowing if the real killer would be caught or confess. Hell, they didn't know if the guy was in a booking station at that very moment.Innocent people are convicted of murder. It is not impossible. Innocent people are framed by the police, also not impossible. However the police usually wait a day or two for the fog to clear before they start railroading innocent people. In the beginning of an investigation there are just too many unknowns, unless of course one of the officers knew who was the murderer and knew the details of the killing but even then they still didn't know if OJ had a rock solid alibi. Unless the conspiracy was prior to the murders and someone was tracking OJ's whereabouts but this gets into 9/11 CT territory. Possible but not one shred of evidence to back it up.

And even more idiotic, the CTers, errr I mean the jury, wanted to believe that racist cops were out to get OJ. Except....at the time the bodies were found, the cops had no idea who they were or who they belonged to. So even assuming that "racist" cops wanted to frame a black guy for the murder, the CTers/jury want us to believe that, in a city with tens of thousands of black guys to choose from, they out of the blue decided that they would frame OJ? LOL!!! Wouldn't it make more sense to go down to skid row and grab a homeless black guy than to try to frame one that you know would be able to afford million dollar lawyers?

[RandFan]

Resurrecting a nearly 4-year-old thread? Interesting.

As to your post, I think your critical thinking skills need a little work.

Welcome to the forum. The thread garnered 17 posts back then years ago and 38 since...

[Random]

Couple of points on this.

-Falsifying evidence in a capital crime is a capital offense in the state of California. The list of people who would have had to take this chance in the Simpson case is so long as to beggar imagination. First off, the two police officers who were at the scene of the crime had to be in on it. They are the ones who found one glove, but not the other (which turned up at the Simpson estate). These two officers, one of whom was black, would have had to deny the existence of the second glove at the scene for Fuhrman to take it and bring it to the Simpson estate. Then there are the other detectives who came to the crime scene with Fuhrman, one of whom was close to retirement.

They would have all had to risk the death penalty by framing Simpson, and this is the fun part, before they knew if he had an alibi! They didn’t get a chance to talk to Simpson until the day after the murder, after all of the evidence tampering was supposed to have taken place. Wouldn’t it look odd if the police found a lot of evidence implicating Simpson in the murders, but Simpson had positive proof that he was a party with a dozen people at the time?

Then there were the crime scene investigators, the folks at the DNA labs, the person who drew the blood sample from Simpson for comparison, etc.

-The gloves were tight fitting because they had shrunk after being soaked in human blood. They were still a set of Isotoner gloves that appeared to have been the same size and style as those that had been given to Simpson as a birthday gift and which he was recorded on videotape as wearing on television in the time before the murders. Strangely enough, Simpson defense lawyers did not present Simpson’s pair of unbloody gloves that he would have had if he did not use them in the murder. Wonder why that is…

-Mark Fuhrman, while having issues with racist comment regarding blacks, also had a black girlfriend, a black patrol partner, and on one occasion worked overtime to prove that a black man was innocent of the crime that he had been accused of. The prosecution mentioned none of this in the hopes that if they didn’t try to defend Fuhrman, the defense would let it slide. The Simpson prosecution team was composed of idiots.

And it went on and on and on…

[Mike B.]

Randfan says this:

"Bloody footprints in Nicole's home were identified as being made from a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes are expensive and rare. The size 12 prints match Simpson's shoe size. Simpson claims under oath that he does not own such shoes and in fact indicates that he thinks they "are ugly." A photograph was introduced showing Simpson wearing the exact shoes at an NFL football game. Simpson claimed under oath that the photo is a forgery and is backed up by an expert witness. Later, another photo taken by a different source, also showed Simpson wearing the same shoes at another NFL football game."

Check and mate!!!

[Darth Rotor]

Randfan says this:

"Bloody footprints in Nicole's home were identified as being made from a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes are expensive and rare. The size 12 prints match Simpson's shoe size. Simpson claims under oath that he does not own such shoes and in fact indicates that he thinks they "are ugly." A photograph was introduced showing Simpson wearing the exact shoes at an NFL football game. Simpson claimed under oath that the photo is a forgery and is backed up by an expert witness. Later, another photo taken by a different source, also showed Simpson wearing the same shoes at another NFL football game."

Check and mate!!!
So why was LAPD not using that as evidence when DA had the murder case?

DR

[gumboot]

Why is eyewitness testimony the only valid evidence? Where did that come from? Are you saying that we cannot use logic and reason to come to a conclusion?


Not at all. I would like to see a distinction between "I believe he is guilty" and "he is guilty".

As to above... it's not about "witness testimony" it's about MY witness testimony.

You're talking about first hand evidence as opposed to second hand evidence. If other forms of evidence are presented (including SOMEONE ELSE'S eyewitness testimony) you yourself do not have first hand contact with that evidence.

I personally think police forces are beginning to rely far too heavily on DNA as evidence to a crime, and I think when DNA is the only evidence pointing to a crime, there should not be a conviction. It is given the same position now that a photograph used to be given, or eye witness testimony before that. But it is not infallible, much as people might like to claim otherwise.

DNA evidence is by far the easiest evidence to fabricate.

-Gumboot

[hgc]

Not at all. I would like to see a distinction between "I believe he is guilty" and "he is guilty".
I don't know why. If someone on an Internet message board says "he is guilty," that can only mean that he says it because he believes it. Do you think that anyone here saying those words means it in any other sense, like for instance means it in the sense that he's guilty in the eyes of the law?

[gumboot]

I don't know why. If someone on an Internet message board says "he is guilty," that can only mean that he says it because he believes it. Do you think that anyone here saying those words means it in any other sense, like for instance means it in the sense that he's guilty in the eyes of the law?


No, people here seem to say it in the sense of "it's blatantly obvious to the entire universe that he's guilty and if you think otherwise you're a complete and utter moron".

The level of sheer arrogance shown by a lot of "skeptics" here is a little mind-blowing. (And it only seems to be in this sub forum, which is a little odd)

-Gumboot

[hgc]

No, people here seem to say it in the sense of "it's blatantly obvious to the entire universe that he's guilty and if you think otherwise you're a complete and utter moron".Some things may be known with such a degree of certitude that it is reasonable to think that deniers are morons. Is that deniable?

The level of sheer arrogance shown by a lot of "skeptics" here is a little mind-blowing. (And it only seems to be in this sub forum, which is a little odd)
Arrogance may be unpleasant, but I don't see how it's a priori damaging to the skeptical quality of an argument.

[Walk The Line]

No, people here seem to say it in the sense of "it's blatantly obvious to the entire universe that he's guilty and if you think otherwise you're a complete and utter moron".

The reason that most of the American public assume OJ's guilt is:
1. He had a history of physical violence against one of the murder victims
2. A mountain of evidence that points towards OJ Simpson being guilty of this crime (which RandFan has pointed out)
3. The fact that OJ has presented no evidence of another person who could be guilty despite his statements that he is working hard to find the killer
4. His attempt to make money off a book/interview that would describe how he could have theoretically killed his wife

Perhaps you can begin to see why many people don't give a second thought to his guilt and think that he is a despicable human being.


The level of sheer arrogance shown by a lot of "skeptics" here is a little mind-blowing. (And it only seems to be in this sub forum, which is a little odd)


If you don't think OJ is guilty, perhaps you can provide evidence of another person who may have committed this crime?

[Aoidoi]

DNA evidence is by far the easiest evidence to fabricate.
I'm just curious, on what basis do you say this? It's not something I've heard argued this way before.

Seems like you'd either need a DNA sample from your suspect to plant (either need to be on the scene of the crime with the sample or break the chain of custody) or else an accomplice in the lab to lie about the results (risking being disproven in independent tests). Seems like it'd be about the same for a fingerprint, though I don't actually know if you can "plant" one effectively outside of tv. Tampering with eyewitnesses has a long and ignoble tradition, seems like it'd be the easiest, if not necessarily the most effective.

What other evidence could you fabricate? Timelines? Phone records? Autopsy results? Photos/videos/recordings? Personal possessions found at the scene? What other sorts of evidence are there? And is there any sort on which a Law & Order or CSI episode has not focused? ;)

At the time I was of the opinion that OJ bought his way out, but given that I was in Junior High at the time (IIRC), can't say I was necessarily the most jaded of observers. What largely convinced me way back when was OJs ever changing alibi, which is certainly not rock solid proof, but seemed awfully incriminating to me at the time. At this point I'd need to spend more time and effort that I'm willing to give to the case to be absolutely sure, but Randfan's listing of evidence sure pushes me in that direction, assuming it's accurate.

Also seem to recall that he was found guilty in the civil trial, under the lesser burden of evidence that entails (preponderance of evidence, IIRC). So in some sense he was found guilty, though not of the murder charges.

[Random]

So why was LAPD not using that as evidence when DA had the murder case?

DR

One of the lesser known issues of the OJ Simpson Case is the monumental incompetence of the prosecutors. There were piles of incriminating evidence that they did not look for, introduce into evidence, and in some cases fought in open court to keep out. Simpson’s statement to the police, the evidence from the slow speed chase, photographic proof that he wore various articles of clothing previously, etc. Their case was a shambles from start to finish. So when you ask yourself, “why didn’t the DA do X”, the answer is, “they were stupid”.

If you are really interest in this, you need to pick up a copy of Outrage: How OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder, by Vincent Bugliosi.

[Walk The Line]

If you are really interest in this, you need to pick up a copy of Outrage: How OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder, by Vincent Bugliosi.

Actually, the book is entitled "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder"

[Random]

Actually, the book is entitled "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder"

Sorry, I didn't have it in front of me and misremembered the title. I only read it when I am in a good mood and want to get out of it.

[skepticism]

American white pople have a way with words.

Kramer, or Michael Richards, would say "N___, N_____, N______"

Now, most white people won't do that, unless they're paid to, like Kramer.
What most white people do when they really mean to say the N world multiple times, is something like "OJ is Guilty," or "only morons believe he's innocent."

It's the same racist motivation.

Mark Fuhrman, typical racist white police detective can take the Fifth, as to whether he planted evidence, and no white person really cares. Planting evidence to convict innocent black people has replaced the lynchings in the South.

A racist detective planting fake evidence to convict an innocent black man. That is just a little fact, almost no white person cares about, as they rant on about how only morons believe OJ is innocent.

Kramer, Fuhrman, most white people, that's the state of America's real race relations.

[joobie]

BTW: i will mail my copy of the bugliosi book to the first person that offers me postage.

(i have it in hardback but i imagine that it won't be much more than $3 to send anywhere in the US. international i dunno.)

[Solitaire]

American white people have a way with words.

If Fuhrman planted evidence to convict O.J. Simpson wrongly, then who is Fuhrman protecting?

[hgc]

If Fuhrman planted evidence to convict O.J. Simpson wrongly, then who is Fuhrman protecting?
Columbian drug lords. al Queda.

[fuelair]

American white pople have a way with words.

Kramer, or Michael Richards, would say "N___, N_____, N______"

Now, most white people won't do that, unless they're paid to, like Kramer.
What most white people do when they really mean to say the N world multiple times, is something like "OJ is Guilty," or "only morons believe he's innocent."

It's the same racist motivation.

Mark Fuhrman, typical racist white police detective can take the Fifth, as to whether he planted evidence, and no white person really cares. Planting evidence to convict innocent black people has replaced the lynchings in the South.

A racist detective planting fake evidence to convict an innocent black man. That is just a little fact, almost no white person cares about, as they rant on about how only morons believe OJ is innocent.

Kramer, Fuhrman, most white people, that's the state of America's real race relations.

You have apparently neglected to read the other posts and the books. And he is guilty. Nothing anyone says (unless Nicole and other victim come back to life and blame someone else) can convince me otherwise (uh, you can prove the gloves, DNA and shoe evidence were planted ? Just curious.)

[Mike B.]

"What most white people do when they really mean to say the N world multiple times, is something like 'OJ is Guilty,' or 'only morons believe he's innocent.'"

I don't know this might be signature material!!!

[Walk The Line]

I don't know this might be signature material!!!

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

[gtc]

Works the other way too. Just the other day I wanted to say that I think OJ is guilty but all that came out was

'N***** N***** N***** N***** C**** S****** N***** can N***** my N********'

Fortunately the malls short of Santas this year, so I got to keep my job.

[Regnad Kcin]

American white pople have a way with words.

Kramer, or Michael Richards, would say "N___, N_____, N______"

Now, most white people won't do that, unless they're paid to, like Kramer.
What most white people do when they really mean to say the N world multiple times, is something like "OJ is Guilty," or "only morons believe he's innocent."

It's the same racist motivation.

Mark Fuhrman, typical racist white police detective can take the Fifth, as to whether he planted evidence, and no white person really cares. Planting evidence to convict innocent black people has replaced the lynchings in the South.

A racist detective planting fake evidence to convict an innocent black man. That is just a little fact, almost no white person cares about, as they rant on about how only morons believe OJ is innocent.

Kramer, Fuhrman, most white people, that's the state of America's real race relations.Remarkable.

[Mycroft]

So you don't believe in the value of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Okay. I do. Even when it's inconvenient.

-Gumboot

The value of "innocent until proven guilty" is not that a person is really somehow magically innocent until proven guilty, but that he is protected from the actions of an overzealous government until he is proven guilty. His actual guilt or innocence is a separate issue, and certainly subject to opinions that may differ from what happens in court.

[davefoc]

The value of "innocent until proven guilty" is not that a person is really somehow magically innocent until proven guilty, but that he is protected from the actions of an overzealous government until he is proven guilty. His actual guilt or innocence is a separate issue, and certainly subject to opinions that may differ from what happens in court.

You see Mycroft, if you kept posting long enough eventually you would hit on something that you and I agree on.

[Random]

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

If it rhymes, you don't do time.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A racist detective planting fake evidence to convict an innocent black man. That is just a little fact, almost no white person cares about, as they rant on about how only morons believe OJ is innocent.

Except, that didn't happen in this case. Only the CTers buy that one. And the morons. You know, the people who actually think OJ is innocent.

[varwoche]

A racist detective planting fake evidence to convict an innocent black man. That is just a little fact, almost no white person cares about, as they rant on about how only morons believe OJ is innocent. LOL. The characters arrayed in this thread disagree with one another on just about everything under the sun. Congratulations on being a one person peace pipe, and just in time for Christmas the holidays.

[hgc]

LOL. The characters arrayed in this thread disagree with one another on just about everything under the sun. Congratulations on being a one person peace pipe, and just in time for Christmas the holidays.
peace pipe crack pipe

[Polaris]

I wonder what the chances of that ending up in violence are? :(

May it be Menendez-style violence with an OJ-style verdict.

[fuelair]

May it be Menendez-style violence with an OJ-style verdict.
Excellent idea!!! ("Do you have any kind of excuse for putting Mr. Simpson through a juicer and liquefying him?" "Why yes, yes we do - he cut up and killed our mother!" "Not Guilty!!" ):D :D :D

[progressquest]

It's obvious he's innocent. After all, he named his book If I Did It..., not How I Did It.... C'mon people, look at the evidence!

[Art Vandelay]

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.No, he's not. His innocence status doesn't change depending on whether he's convicted.

So you don't believe in the value of "innocent until proven guilty"?The original phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". People seem to have trouble remembering that part. The justice system presumes OJ's innocence; thatdoesn't mean he is innocent.

He murdered those people in cold blood, What evidence do you have that he killed them in cold blood? Was he charged with first degree murder?

As to above... it's not about "witness testimony" it's about MY witness testimony.So if someone you really trusted made a claim, but it was not enough to convict, you would not consider it determative?

What most white people do when they really mean to say the N world multiple times, is something like "OJ is Guilty," or "only morons believe he's innocent." Seeing as how you're assigning attributes based on race, it's clear that you are the racist one, and quite rabid, too.

A racist detective planting fake evidence to convict an innocent black man. That is just a little fact, almost no white person cares about, as they rant on about how only morons believe OJ is innocent.Do you have any proof of these "facts", such as that racism is typical, Fuhrman planted evidence, or that almost no white person cares about it? Seeing as how the jurors acquitted, it looks like they did care.


You know those "Columbian drug lords."British, University, or District of?

The usual Randi group think OJ is guilty because some scientist testified at the criminal trial, and the jury didn't buy their testimony.Strawman.

OJ Simpson had Mark Furhman, the racist police officer who liked to manufacture evidence and lie on the stand, because he's trying to help convict people he "knows" are guilty. So he sprinkles some blood of OJ on the crime scene, sprinkles some of the victims' blood in his car.So, there's overwhelming evidence of a black person's guilt, but believing him guilty is racism, but you automatically accept all the charges against a white man? You're a hypocritical bigot.

OJ was innocent.Any support for that claim?

Even the white civil jurors said had the standard of proof been reasonable doubt, they agreed there was reasonable doubt. the nearly all female criminal jury found OJ innocent.No, they found him not guilty.

But in American law, you can falsely accuse anyone of anything, and at most you get some minor penalty.Five years in prison is a minor penalty?

-Falsifying evidence in a capital crime is a capital offense in the state of California.Cite? Can you name one person executed for falsifying evidence?

[RandFan]

Not at all. I would like to see a distinction between "I believe he is guilty" and "he is guilty". Fine, he is did do it though. We will all just pretend that we believe he is guilty. Fair enough? For the record, I believe in gravity but I can't prove it so I won't say that gravity is anything more than a theory.

You're talking about first hand evidence as opposed to second hand evidence. If other forms of evidence are presented (including SOMEONE ELSE'S eyewitness testimony) you yourself do not have first hand contact with that evidence. No one witnessed the big bang or evolution so those are out.

I personally think police forces are beginning to rely far too heavily on DNA as evidence to a crime, and I think when DNA is the only evidence pointing to a crime, there should not be a conviction. It is given the same position now that a photograph used to be given, or eye witness testimony before that. But it is not infallible, much as people might like to claim otherwise. I don't but I respect your opinion. I hope that it doesn't become typical. That's just my opinion.

DNA evidence is by far the easiest evidence to fabricate. I don't agree. At all. I see no reason to accept this. What is your basis for this statement?

[slingblade]

The usual Randi group...

Of course we're a randy group. We meet in a hotel only once a year, for fark's sake.


No doubt Randi types like these scientists,

We do. They discovered many important things the randy type cannot do without. Like condoms. And Motion Lotion.


Most criminal defendants may be guilty.

As generalizations go, that may be safe to say. Relevance?

Whites trust the police to make good arrests.

Not all of them trust that.

But most criminal defendants who risk everything, including their life, at a trial, turning down opportunities for a plea agreement, raise serious questions as to their innocence.

They do? So if I'm innocent, and I don't take a plea bargain for a crime I didn't commit, and I choose to go to trial, how does all that raise serious questions as to my innocence?

Then throw in a racist evidence tampering police detective like Fuhrman who takes the Fifth, you can't just conclude that OJ is guilty and trot out "science" as the reason.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. :boggled:

[Random]

Cite? Can you name one person executed for falsifying evidence?

Looked up the law and had it slightly wrong. If an invididual falsely testifies under oath and an innocent individual is executed, that is a capital offense. It's in the California Penal Code section 128:

128. Every person who, by willful perjury or subornation of perjury
procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person, is
punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of
parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to Sections 190.3
and 190.4.

No one has been convicted uder this poriton of the law yet, since there has not yet been a case where an innocent man was executed and it later proven that they were innocent.

[nightwind]

Well, the killing was a technique used by professional killers, who showed expertise in committing the act. If he did it, wonder who trained him?

[Rob Lister]

Well, the killing was a technique used by professional killers, who showed expertise in committing the act. If he did it, wonder who trained him?

Was it not the case that just prior to the killing he was involved in a movie wherein he played the part of a Navy Seal, and played in scenes doing exactly that? My memory is foggy.

[RandFan]

Of course we're a randy group. We meet in a hotel only once a year, for fark's sake.

We do. They discovered many important things the randy type cannot do without. Like condoms. And Motion Lotion.

As generalizations go, that may be safe to say. Relevance?

Not all of them trust that.

They do? So if I'm innocent, and I don't take a plea bargain for a crime I didn't commit, and I choose to go to trial, how does all that raise serious questions as to my innocence?

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. :boggled: Great post. Especially the part about the condoms and motion lotion. :D

[RandFan]

Well, the killing was a technique used by professional killers, who showed expertise in committing the act. If he did it, wonder who trained him?This is not a great bit of evidence. In any such event there are many bits of information and there will always be something that seems to be incongruous. Seasoned detectives expect anomalies and incongruity.

That said, who knows? Perhaps OJ was taught such a technique. Perhaps he learned it from watching the movies or acting in the movies. What's important is that such a point can't invalidate all of the other evidence against him and the parsimonious answer is simply that OJ is guilty.

[Kerberos]

American white pople have a way with words.

Kramer, or Michael Richards, would say "N___, N_____, N______"

Now, most white people won't do that, unless they're paid to, like Kramer.
What most white people do when they really mean to say the N world multiple times, is something like "OJ is Guilty," or "only morons believe he's innocent."

It's the same racist motivation.

Mark Fuhrman, typical racist white police detective can take the Fifth, as to whether he planted evidence, and no white person really cares. Planting evidence to convict innocent black people has replaced the lynchings in the South.

A racist detective planting fake evidence to convict an innocent black man. That is just a little fact, almost no white person cares about, as they rant on about how only morons believe OJ is innocent.

Kramer, Fuhrman, most white people, that's the state of America's real race relations.
The pot calling the kettle black (pun intended). You are black are you not? I conclude this from you lack of way with words.

[skepticism]

You think I'm black. William Kunstler had similar views about how police treated black people. He was white.

Jews are at the Iran conference, for Holocaust Denial. Orthodox Jews are there saying they're Jews, not Zionists, and they also deny the holocaust. That doesn't make them German or Arab or whatever group you dislike.

OJ was part of a police conspiracy to prosecute prominent blacks. After Rodney King, the police were upset. They went after OJ and Michael Jackson. They wanted to convicted a prominent black person.

When LA police beat Rodney King on video, you could see how racist white people were. A white jury acquitted the police. They had the video tape, what more did they want. Compare that to OJ, no video, no witnesses, but white people believe OJ is guilty. Go Figure. White people consider the Furhman faked evidnce to be proof, but the videotape on LA police is not proof?

Police in America have a slight prejudice, towards the property owners. They get free donuts at the donut shops, freebies by business owners to watch their businesses more closely. Meanwhile white people think white police officers are just objective law enforcement, with no prejudices against blacks. Whites are so prejudice they think the only people that might defend OJ are black people.

The Scottsboro boys in Alabama? railroaded to a conviction. Only black people would defend them? a white supreme court reversed the convictions.

It's easy to express an opinion, if there's no penalty for a wrong opinion. OJ expressed his opinon, one hundred percent not guilty. He bore the burden of a wrong opinion, the death penalty. He bet his life on a his innocence. He did that before it became known how Fuhrman fakes evidence. OJ bet his life at a time when Shapiro thought OJ would lose at trial.

The only reason OJ bet his life, was because he was innocent. That's the major motivation for betting your life when it looks like you're going to lose at trial.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Apparently you haven't read the thread. Only one response left for all of your claims......Evidence?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You think I'm black. William Kunstler had similar views about how police treated black people. He was white.

Jews are at the Iran conference, for Holocaust Denial. Orthodox Jews are there saying they're Jews, not Zionists, and they also deny the holocaust. That doesn't make them German or Arab or whatever group you dislike.

OJ was part of a police conspiracy to prosecute prominent blacks. After Rodney King, the police were upset. They went after OJ and Michael Jackson. They wanted to convicted a prominent black person.

When LA police beat Rodney King on video, you could see how racist white people were. A white jury acquitted the police. They had the video tape, what more did they want. Compare that to OJ, no video, no witnesses, but white people believe OJ is guilty. Go Figure. White people consider the Furhman faked evidnce to be proof, but the videotape on LA police is not proof?

Police in America have a slight prejudice, towards the property owners. They get free donuts at the donut shops, freebies by business owners to watch their businesses more closely. Meanwhile white people think white police officers are just objective law enforcement, with no prejudices against blacks. Whites are so prejudice they think the only people that might defend OJ are black people.

The Scottsboro boys in Alabama? railroaded to a conviction. Only black people would defend them? a white supreme court reversed the convictions.

It's easy to express an opinion, if there's no penalty for a wrong opinion. OJ expressed his opinon, one hundred percent not guilty. He bore the burden of a wrong opinion, the death penalty. He bet his life on a his innocence. He did that before it became known how Fuhrman fakes evidence. OJ bet his life at a time when Shapiro thought OJ would lose at trial.

The only reason OJ bet his life, was because he was innocent. That's the major motivation for betting your life when it looks like you're going to lose at trial.

What color is the sky in your world?

[Solitaire]

You think I'm black. William Kunstler had similar views about how police treated black people. He was white.

Sorry mam. We only care about the facts.

OJ was part of a police conspiracy to prosecute prominent blacks. After Rodney King, the police were upset. They went after OJ and Michael Jackson. They wanted to convicted a prominent black person.

Got the why. Now fill in the details of where, when, who, and how - especially the how.

When LA police beat Rodney King on video, you could see how racist white people were. A white jury acquitted the police. They had the video tape, what more did they want.

Here's a perfect chance to do research. Dig up old interviews with the jury and anything else relevant. From the outside it looks bad.

Compare that to OJ, no video, no witnesses, but white people believe OJ is guilty. Go Figure. White people consider the Furhman faked evidnce to be proof, but the videotape on LA police is not proof?

Again, if it was faked then you need to find the evidence of the faking.

A small note:

(1) A cospiracy can be kept between two people if one of them is dead.
(2) If more than two people are involved in a conspiracy then issue a press release.

It's easy to express an opinion, if there's no penalty for a wrong opinion. OJ expressed his opinon, one hundred percent not guilty. He bore the burden of a wrong opinion, the death penalty. He bet his life on a his innocence. He did that before it became known how Fuhrman fakes evidence. OJ bet his life at a time when Shapiro thought OJ would lose at trial.

The only reason OJ bet his life, was because he was innocent. That's the major motivation for betting your life when it looks like you're going to lose at trial.

Might another option be on the table? You're rich, you're cocky, and you think can buy the best damn legal team to get you off the hook. Of course, this just another possible opinion, I'm sure there can be many more.

[RandFan]

OJ was part of a police conspiracy to prosecute prominent blacks.Evidence?

The only reason OJ bet his life, was because he was innocent. That's the major motivation for betting your life when it looks like you're going to lose at trial.Actually no.

Do you have something other than your opinion and odd logic?

[SezMe]

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law.
Correct.

You think OJ Simpson was guilty? Prove it in a court of law. Until that happens, the man is innocent.

Incorrect.

"Not guilty" is NOT the same as innocent. At least in American jurisprudence. The verdict means that the state did not prove it's case "beyond a reasonable doubt". It does NOT mean that he is therefore innocent.

The difference is crucial...as illustrated by this very case.

[SezMe]

OJ was part of a police conspiracy to prosecute prominent blacks. After Rodney King, the police were upset. They went after OJ and Michael Jackson. They wanted to convicted a prominent black person.
Wrong. On two counts.

First, the police in LA are two counties away from the police where Jackson lived. So if the "police" were part of a conspiracy to prosecute prominent blacks, this conspriacy extended over two counties and two totally separate legal jurisdictions. Quite a conspiracy! Got evidence?

Second, the "police" did not go after Jackson. The county District Attorney did...with a vengenance. Twice. In both cases, the police only served a very minor, almost housekeeping role, in these cases.

Your screed fails to pass the odor test.

[Kerberos]

You think I'm black.

Yes, I do.
William Kunstler had similar views about how police treated black people. He was white.
And he also shared you other opinions about white people? If so I couls point out that there are Jewish Nazis. Most Nazis are not Jewish though, and most people strongly racist against whites are not white. You could also be Asian or Indian for example, but you prosecution complex in relation to black people indicates otherwise.

Jews are at the Iran conference, for Holocaust Denial. Orthodox Jews are there saying they're Jews, not Zionists, and they also deny the holocaust. That doesn't make them German or Arab or whatever group you dislike.
Because not denying the holocaust logically implies that you're German, just as inventing conspiracies against blacks out of whole cloth implies that you're black. Also of course you can't be both Jewish and German.

OJ was part of a police conspiracy to prosecute prominent blacks. After Rodney King, the police were upset. They went after OJ and Michael Jackson. They wanted to convicted a prominent black person.
Sure.

When LA police beat Rodney King on video, you could see how racist white people were.
Because the LA police, have the unique quality of being composed of a totally representative sample of white people, meaning that any conclusion about the LA police can safely be generalized to all white people.

A white jury acquitted the police. They had the video tape, what more did they want. Compare that to OJ, no video, no witnesses, but white people believe OJ is guilty. Go Figure. White people consider the Furhman faked evidnce to be proof, but the videotape on LA police is not proof?
Actually lots of people consider the LA police officers just as guilty as OJ, but don't facts interfere with you delusions

The only reason OJ bet his life, was because he was innocent. That's the major motivation for betting your life when it looks like you're going to lose at trial.
Because guilty people never pledge not guilty, actually you could totally discount with trials and just ask people to pledge guilty and not guilty and then move on to the sentencing.

[Darth Rotor]

If you are really interest in this, you need to pick up a copy of Outrage: How OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder, by Vincent Bugliosi.
I read it ten years ago. Have forgotten some of the details. I was outraged. :p

DR

[Art Vandelay]

OJ was part of a police conspiracy to prosecute prominent blacks. You've presented no evidence of this, but you'd rather believe this than that OJ was guilty, even though there's evidence overwhelming evidence of that. Clearly, you are motivated by bigotry.

A white jury acquitted the police.A mostly white jury.

White people consider the Furhman faked evidnce to be proof, but the videotape on LA police is not proof?More strawmen.

Whites are so prejudice they think the only people that might defend OJ are black people.Any evidence for that assertion? Do you think that Kerberos falls into the "American white people" category?

The Scottsboro boys in Alabama? railroaded to a conviction. Only black people would defend them? a white supreme court reversed the convictions. The difference is that there are good reasons for doubting their guilt.

He bore the burden of a wrong opinion, the death penalty.Cite that he faced the death penalty?

The only reason OJ bet his life, was because he was innocent. That's the major motivation for betting your life when it looks like you're going to lose at trial.How is that a motivation? And how does this trump all the evidence against him?

[Random]

When LA police beat Rodney King on video, you could see how racist white people were. A white jury acquitted the police. They had the video tape, what more did they want. Compare that to OJ, no video, no witnesses, but white people believe OJ is guilty. Go Figure. White people consider the Furhman faked evidnce to be proof, but the videotape on LA police is not proof?
I've seen the tape. The cops should have gone to jail.

It's easy to express an opinion, if there's no penalty for a wrong opinion. OJ expressed his opinon, one hundred percent not guilty. He bore the burden of a wrong opinion, the death penalty. He bet his life on a his innocence. He did that before it became known how Fuhrman fakes evidence. OJ bet his life at a time when Shapiro thought OJ would lose at trial.

The only reason OJ bet his life, was because he was innocent. That's the major motivation for betting your life when it looks like you're going to lose at trial.
OJ Simpson didn’t take a deal because he didn’t want to go to prison. Can’t say I blame him, I can’t imagine that prison is a nice place to live. He didn't think he had done anything that deserved any kind of punishment. Instead he hired a bunch of lawyers to blow smoke and obfuscate and try to get reasonable doubt. It worked.

If Simpson is innocent, who did it? Not a professional hit, since they were stabbed, not shot. Not a robbery, since they still had valuables on them. They didn’t kill each other, because the weapon was never found and they would not have been able to get rid of it. Who else had a motive?

What was Simpson doing at the time of the murders? In his statement to the police, he said he was “running around and stuff”, preparing for his trip to Chicago. He said that he got a bad cut on his hand that night, bled on the ground and in his Bronco, and didn’t remember how it happened.

When Simpson tried to run during the slow speed chase, he wrote a letter protesting his innocence. But in the letter, he never indicated that he was being framed. Isn’t that kind of a no-brainer? Your wife is murdered, you know you didn’t do it, but all sorts of evidence starts turning up implicating you. Don’t you think, “Hey, I’m being framed”?

If Simpson is innocent, the police must have framed him. His blood at the murder scene, their blood at his place, if the police didn’t frame him, he did it. But why did the police frame him? They would have had to start framing him before they knew if he had an alibi. Fuhrman had previously dealt with Simpson as a police officer, but gave him a free ride. Now he goes out of his way to frame him when they don’t know if he did it? It’s not like they were in an episode of 24 and had to frame someone before the clock ran out. The victims weren’t getting any deader. But you seem to think that a bunch of LAPD detectives got together one night and spontaneously decided to frame a multi-millionaire celebrity for two murders without checking to see whether or not he did it.

[RandFan]

But you seem to think that a bunch of LAPD detectives got together one night and spontaneously decided to frame a multi-millionaire celebrity for two murders without checking to see whether or not he did it. Great post. For all they knew OJ was out of town at the time of the murder.

[subgenius]

I can't read all of this crap, but I'm astounded constantly how a not guilty verdict is misunderstood to mean that it represents the truth, or fact, that a certain thing does or didn't exist.
All it means is that a person, in our system can't be punished by the state unless found guilty according to prescribed procedures. Nothing more.
One doesn't have to suspend all rational deduction in the face of a verdict.

[davefoc]

Nicely said subgenius, albeit a sentiment that before reading this thread I would have guessed was so obvious that it hardly needed to be said.

A few small points:
Simpson didn't face the death penalty. The death penalty was off the table before the start of the trial.

Some of the police involved with the Rodney King case were convicted in a second trial and did jail time.

[Mike B.]

Here is another little known fact about the Rodney King matter.

The four police were not all acquitted in the first state trial.

It was a hung jury on Lawrence Powell, the one swinging the batons.

That fact got quickly lost in all the hub-bub.

[robinson]

I can prove OJ did it. I offered this proof to the LA DA during the trial, and they said they didn't need it, they already had enough proof. It is proof enough that even my black friends decided OJ did it after I showed them the proof. (this is proof in a legal sense, not scientific)

100% proof OJ did it. No doubt at all.

[Kerberos]

I can prove OJ did it. I offered this proof to the LA DA during the trial, and they said they didn't need it, they already had enough proof. It is proof enough that even my black friends decided OJ did it after I showed them the proof. (this is proof in a legal sense, not scientific)

100% proof OJ did it. No doubt at all.
Do share.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can prove OJ did it. I offered this proof to the LA DA during the trial, and they said they didn't need it, they already had enough proof. It is proof enough that even my black friends decided OJ did it after I showed them the proof. (this is proof in a legal sense, not scientific)

100% proof OJ did it. No doubt at all.

Is it because, after the trial, he reportedly asked if he could have his hat and glove back?

[joobie]

i loved david letterman's joke after the 'if the glove don't fit, you must acquit' speech:

"he could have hired nipsey russell for a lot less money."

(paraphrased)

[Kerberos]

Is it because, after the trial, he reportedly asked if he could have his hat and glove back?

Not unless Robinson is precognisant.

[robinson]

heh

[robinson]

Please feel free to pick apart any holes in this proof. Or start an endless run of bad jokes and puns. I understand.

The proof is simple. Nobody but OJ could have performed the murders. Even without any of the other evidence I am convinced of this. And if you know dogs, you will be as well.

Because there was a witness to the murders, and the witness is not the sort to just make a funny howling sound, (which the neighbors reported, and established the time of the crime).

The witness also led people to the bodies, (because of the blood on his fur). Kato the Akita was there, this is without question. Kato the Akita was OJ's dog.

Kato did nothing but howl as his other master was murdered, on his own doorstep. The door was open, (the dog was outside, that is how people heard the howl, and how he went wandering around in distress).

Simple. 100%. If you know what an Akita is like, you know it too. Because nothin, and I mean nothing but pepper spray or a big gun is going to stop the family Akita from attacking someone who tries to hurt his family. There was no evidence of pepper spray or any other method used on the dog to prevent it from doing its job.

For those that don't know, an Akita is like a Japanese pit-bull, in attitude and strength. OJ gave the dog to Nicole to protect her. It is impossible that anyone but OJ could have done these crimes. Not with the family Akita standing there.

Yet all it did was make funny, unusual sounds. What you might expect if it watched its Master (OJ) kill two people. While this wasn't allowed in court (the LA DA said they said they didn't need it, overwhelming other physical evidence was enough), it is quite enough for a rational thinker to know what happened.

If you want to check my Akita data, here is an easy link.

http://www.dog.com/breed/Akita.asp
BODY TYPE:

* A powerful looking dog with a distinctive, bear-like expression.
* Height: 24-28 inches (at shoulder)
* Weight: 75-110 pounds
* The tail is set high and curls forward over the back. It is never altered.
* The ears are erect and are not altered.
* Bones are very thick and strong.

PERSONALITY:

* A strong willed, instinctual and dominant breed not for first-time dog owners.
* Bred for hunting large game, the Akita can be unreliable around small animals, cats and other dogs (especially of the same sex).
* Suitable for well-behaved, respectful children if raised with them. Strict adult supervision is always recommended when children and dogs interact.
* Naturally protective and defensive of resources, family and property; therefore early obedience training is imperative. Owners must educate themselves in fair, kind, consistent leadership roles in order to produce a lasting bond with their Akita.

In all these years I have never met anyone, of any background, who has doubted OJ did it after hearing my proof. But feel free to pick it apart. After all, we are skeptics.

The only possible flaw would have been the dog was behind the door, and nosed it open AFTER the murders. Then started howling. For this to be possible, the dog would have had to wait while a stranger was right there outside the door killing Nicole. But dogs can smell, and hear, and there is almost no possibility an Akita would not have acted right away. It goes against everything we know about dog instincts, especially an Akita, a breed that will seriously mess you up if you even come too close to its family.

I hope you enjoyed my theory. I know for a fact that OJ didn't.

[subgenius]

Vincent Bugliosi, probably the best lawyer in the country did a book about it. He would have convicted him in a New York minute. The prosecution was horrible, especially Scientologist Marcia Clark. Understandable with the cult-induced lack of critical thinking skills.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, if someone is willing to believe that the police engaged in a massive conspiracy, then it doesn't seem like all that much of a stretch to imagine that the killers muzzled the dog.

[robinson]

Nope. Even people who think it was a frame up admit that when presented with those facts, it does seem like he did it. Nobody else could have.

[boooeee]

I can attest to robinson's remarks about Akitas.

I made the mistake of walking unattended into my friend's sister's house for the first time (we had all come in the same car, but I was just straggling behind everybody else). Their Akita saw me walk in alone and went ballistic. It NEVER warmed up to me, even years later.

[robinson]

Yeah, you would have to kill or drug a dog like that to stop it. There is no way it wouldn't have gone berserk on a stranger killing its master.

[luchog]

from skepticism:
A mostly white jury.


An interesting quote I read shortly after the verdict, and iirc intended to be somewhat humorous: "The only people who still believe OJ is innocent are white liberals, and not even very many of them."