New OJ Simpson Tapes

originally posted by: smirkley
OJ is a rampant narcissistic personality no different than Jody Arias. She got a "bent" finger. And pretty much drove away clean to the next party.

Not all bloody murders drench the guilty.

I think he was strong enough to limit his exposure.

So why does a multi-millionaire who is deathly afraid of the sight of blood decide to knife his ex in the first place (right out in a place where's known by everybody)?

Why not strangle her, or better yet hire some thug to strangle her or whatever? Why choose the one way that is most likely to leave fountains of blood, and allow for the victim to possibly scream?

Just one of the many things that don't make sense if you think OJ did it.

a reply to: bronco60

Well he was aquitted.
He is innocent of the related charges.

So my opinion is just that, my opinion only.



Edit to add: interesting username to dedicate your bias to. OJ drove his Bronco 60 miles on the slow speed pursuit. My take is that your need to respond and defend OJ here has defined purpose?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
I always assumed he was guilty. Never gave it a second thought because then I wasn't into conspiracies. It wasn't until I read this thread and putting together all I know:

They've done more things and worse to other celebrities like Michael Jackson, Tupac Shukar, John Lennon.

The made a huge media circus about it which means they were selling us on an idea, really really hard.

He was guilty by media jury from day 1 and his behavior was not consistent with someone just savagely murdering someone. You know, like driving his bronco 45mph with an envoy of police cruise in pursuit.

All very curious.

Yeah, me too, I figured the DNA etc. and the lack of a plausible alternative meant he did it.

Then last year I read a book by William Dear, "OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It", and it really blew my mind. I'm not "into conspiracies" either, but he laid out a ton of evidence pointing at the son. I don't buy his further conclusion that OJ went to the crime scene later and is covering up for Jason--there are too many reasons to doubt that, including nobody saw any cuts on OJ on his plane flight that night nor thought he seemed out of sorts in any way.

The alternative has Jason doing it all on his own, with OJ clueless (maybe to this day). You have to know the extent of this guy's sick, twisted personality and really tragic past to understand why he just screams out for notice as a "person of interest". And that's before you get to the fact he had hand to hand combat training at a military high school, was an expert chef with a full set of knives, carried an illegal hunting knife with him, and most interesting of all--apparently falsified his time card just coincidently at the day and time of the murder.

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: bronco60

Well he was aquitted.
He is innocent of the related charges.

So my opinion is just that, my opinion only.



Edit to add: interesting username to dedicate your bias to. OJ drove his Bronco 60 miles on the slow speed pursuit. My take is that your need to respond and defend OJ here has defined purpose?

Lol Actually that's a reasonable supposition as to the name, but it is wrong. I've been "bronco60" on the net for many years. I am a Denver Broncos fan, and my football jersey back when I was a high school defensive lineman was "60". As it happens OJ was playing back in those days but I thought his style of running was kind of effete, and so wasn't a fan of his.

I had no idea (if true) of the total distance of the slow speed chase, so thanks for adding that factoid.

I did in fact find this interesting site while looking for OJ factoids.

As to a "bias", I'm not sure that is true. I've read a great deal about the case, and have reached certain conclusions. I'm open to having them counterfeited. Until last year I was pretty sure he did it to the rare extent I ever thought about the matter. So I don't have this emotional attatchement one way or the other really--unlike many on the anti-side, who's minds seem set to explode when you give them this further info, and it seems as if being wrong on the matter would be an existential pain.

This is why we end up with cases like the Central Park Five and McMartin...

I read that OJ's son, Jason, was very disturbed, liked to cook and carried a set of sharp knives around with him that he was obsessed with. I have to agree that his son committed the murders and OJ took the accusations to prevent his son from going to death row. As for the son's motives for the killings, I have no idea.

a reply to: bronco60

That is one of those weird coincidences. I hope nobody harms anyone somehow similarly using my username lol.


Edit to add (again): Interesting numbers that may or may not be correct. He drove 60 miles in 60 minutes with a top speed of 60 miles per hour.

I can already see those numbers cant be right. Multiple sources yada yada.

a reply to: bronco60

I've seen the theory here before that it was his son. The person makes a pretty good case, but I don't think OJ wasn't aware of it. If anything he probably took the fall for his son.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: bronco60

I've seen the theory here before that it was his son. The person makes a pretty good case, but I don't think OJ wasn't aware of it. If anything he probably took the fall for his son.

Many people take that away from the case--that he was somewhere there at the scene, or alternately that he was a participant along with his son.

The basic reason for this and all the other problems in the case was, they did not conduct a decent forensic investigation. In fact, it was a laughable disaster. The criminalists did not go to the primary crime scene for many hours (despite long-standing procedure) because the detectives called them to Simpson's home. That lead to degradation of evidence and a rush when they finally got back to Nicole's house. The list of errors then, and subsequently (evidence found or "found" as in apparently planted in a couple of cases) is worthy of several books.

From this, and the prosecution's implausible time line and other really questionable claims people conclude there had to be outside assistance and/or multiple people present during the crime. If you look very carefully that isn't really the case.

As far as OJ knowing about the crime post fact and going there to confirm, I don't think it fits. He hardly has time for one thing, there is no evidence he or anybody else entered the house to check on the 2 younger kids (surely he would have done so, as he was known to care for them deeply), and numerous witnesses attest that he was a perfectly normal, gregarious guy all the way from LAX to his hotel room--until, that is, after he was called by the cops and told what had happened. Then, he falls to pieces as might anyone, and seemed like a legitimately aggrieved man to witnesses on the flight.

I think one other reason people try to put him there is, it explains some of the supposedly unimpeachable physical evidence against him. However, since Jason is also a close physical match, had access to and in fact often stole his dads belongings, and even is a close DNA match, he also explains this supposed "mountain". But since very few knew of then or today about the amazing information pointing at Jason, they resort to the logical conclusion that OJ must somehow be involved.

There's no statue of limitations on murder, so we could very well see OJ's kid get prosecuted at some point.

About the only thing stopping it from happening is that it would take a D.A. with brass balls. The circus that was the OJ trial is the sort of high stakes, high visibility thing that can make but mostly breaks a career. Also, iirc, wasn't OJ's kid already in jail or a mental facility or something like that (i.e. not a free person 'walking the streets with impunity' etc)?

On the other hand, that was the 90s, when cable tv with more than 20 channels was still a big deal and fairly new thing. A big crazy circus of a trial is still something that can and does happen, but then again, there will probably be nothing like the original OJ trial again. For the relatively young people who have no idea, the verdict was on TV during the day and the world practically stopped to all go stand around a TV and see it, and I just don't see people these days giving that much of a damn about it or anything like it. I think a lot of why it happened was just because of the newness of cable tv, a dawn of the information age sort of thing.

originally posted by: 11andrew34
There's no statue of limitations on murder, so we could very well see OJ's kid get prosecuted at some point.

About the only thing stopping it from happening is that it would take a D.A. with brass balls. The circus that was the OJ trial is the sort of high stakes, high visibility thing that can make but mostly breaks a career. Also, iirc, wasn't OJ's kid already in jail or a mental facility or something like that (i.e. not a free person 'walking the streets with impunity' etc)?

On the other hand, that was the 90s, when cable tv with more than 20 channels was still a big deal and fairly new thing. A big crazy circus of a trial is still something that can and does happen, but then again, there will probably be nothing like the original OJ trial again. For the relatively young people who have no idea, the verdict was on TV during the day and the world practically stopped to all go stand around a TV and see it, and I just don't see people these days giving that much of a damn about it or anything like it. I think a lot of why it happened was just because of the newness of cable tv, a dawn of the information age sort of thing.

He could be tested against some of the physical evidence, which supposedly remains. In fact, it's pretty weird Jason hasn't sued William Dear, the guy who uncovered all the evidence against him.--if, that is, the info is untrue. Dear is a retired multi-millionaire, and Jason has supposedly never held down a job for very long (though I have heard he is now married). I can imagine reasons why he might not, but it still gives one pause.

The real problem retrying the case is, as you allude to, the local law enforcement establishment would look like complete asshats if it turned out OJ was innocent, and that above all things must never be allowed to happen. You see that kind of behavior in all sorts of cases, high or low profile, where even when there is no doubt an injustice has occurred, the prosecutors or cops or judges involved still proclaim they got the right guy. I think for some it's just mentally impossible for them to accept the truth; for others, they have darker motives.

I think you're right about the public perceptions then and now. The verdict remains supposedly the most watched event in human history, and yet today there is little discussion or reflection about the case aside from "anniversary" specials etc. People 30 and under have no idea what all these old folks are ranting about, not even having a good handle on how popular Simpson was at the time.

What a weird, interesting, and revealing case in so many ways...

originally posted by: 11andrew34
There's no statue of limitations on murder, so we could very well see OJ's kid get prosecuted at some point.

About the only thing stopping it from happening is that it would take a D.A. with brass balls. The circus that was the OJ trial is the sort of high stakes, high visibility thing that can make but mostly breaks a career. Also, iirc, wasn't OJ's kid already in jail or a mental facility or something like that (i.e. not a free person 'walking the streets with impunity' etc)?

On the other hand, that was the 90s, when cable tv with more than 20 channels was still a big deal and fairly new thing. A big crazy circus of a trial is still something that can and does happen, but then again, there will probably be nothing like the original OJ trial again. For the relatively young people who have no idea, the verdict was on TV during the day and the world practically stopped to all go stand around a TV and see it, and I just don't see people these days giving that much of a damn about it or anything like it. I think a lot of why it happened was just because of the newness of cable tv, a dawn of the information age sort of thing.

As for Jason's status, at the time of the murders he was on probation after he attacked his boss from behind with a knife when he was caught playing hooky from work (pled down to misdeameanor battery or something like that). He had been committed at least once to a 72-hour hold after one of his three suicide attempts (two with sharp objects, a pair of scissors and some glass; the third was from an overdose of a medication he took to control epilepsy-and also to control "rages"). During his dad's trial he was convicted of a misdemeanor hit and run as well (either that or was charged then and later convicted, I don't remember which).

I don't know what his situation is today, but would love to find out.

Most public and infamous case in history and you guys think the prosecution didn't thoroughly investigate the possibility that Jason was involved?
Come on guys...

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Most public and infamous case in history and you guys think the prosecution didn't thoroughly investigate the possibility that Jason was involved?
Come on guys...

Your or my or anyone's opinion is unimportant when we have the facts, and if you'll accept my summary (I can go into more detail and provide references if you like) the facts are:

--OJ was assumed to be the perp virtually from the first hours of the investigation by the cops; the prosecution forced the filing of the case earlier than the cops wanted on account of their eagerness to get him indicted.

There were various psychological, political, internal and evidentiary reasons (not good ones but they existed) for this, and once one is accepted by the system as the target there is no holding back.

--OJ, before he hired any legal reps for himself, brought a famous specialist in handling death penalty cases on to handle the "legal interests" of his son, Jason (he also hired another less high-powered attorney for his adult daughter Arnelle; as an aside, I think this fact is a coincidental red herring and Simpson did not suspect his son but knew about his suggestive past). So when the cops made some preliminary checks they found he had "lawyered up". At the same time they were informed that at the time of the murders Jason was working in front of 200 people as temp head chef for the night, and did not leave the restaurant until after 10:30pm (which makes it impossible for him to be involved). It is unclear exactly who gave them this info but very possibly it was the owner, for whom Jason was substituting that night--Jason was usually a sous chef there.

Had they done some basic checking (visiting the restaurant, asking the employees) they would have discovered:

a) both assertions about his alibi were false, and in fact during the civil trial deposition Jason admitted to the latter during Daniel Petrocelli's kid glove cross-examination

b) Jason's time card for that day and week turns out to have been tampered with, apparently, with a handwritten entry for the day of the murders exculpating him (no other entries, either for him or other employees and either before or after the crime had such a manual entry, as the machine was working perfectly).

In William Dear's book he did find among a forfeited lot of Jason's personal belongings a copy of a subpoena requested by prosecutor Chris Darden for his medical records from an eye, nose and throat doc, but this was several months into the investigation, and there is no indication of any follow-up. My assumption for why they chose such a doctor is, Jason was known to be a serial drug abuser, and perhaps they were searching for evidence of coc aine use, there being some suggestion drugs were somehow involved in the crime.

They did not so far as is known check into his extensive psychiatric record, and they did not at any time interview him or fingerprint him or otherwise treat him as any sort of suspect (thus, for example, they do not know if his was one of the 17 unidentified fingerprints found at the scene).

You can spend all the money in the world looking for a needle in a haystack, and you will never find it if the needle has never left the sewing shop.

Do you recall the McMartin Preschool molestation case? That too was a massive investigation, the most expensive trial in history at the time with significant professional and political undertones, and in the end (though this should have been clear from very early on) it turned out the accused were totally innocent of any wrongdoing. As in the Simpson case, the media and the cops both essentially assumed guilt from the start and ignored problematic aspects of their case.

So, to abuse a phrase, "If the World locks in, you cannot win".

a reply to: bronco60

Wow. You are really are totally lost in this case.
You quote William Dear's book? What, like that is gospel?
I think you should have edited your post a hell of a lot more to emphasize 'clarity'.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

It's a complicated case, and there are a number of misunderstandings. Apparently this includes, in your case, people who think they understand the case lol. If you get to suggest I'm "lost", I get to suggest perhaps you're afraid of the personal implications if I am correct.

Dear came up with a lot of original information. I don't think I'm going to find that stuff in Marcia's book, right?

And if you'd taken care to read, I've already said I don't agree with one of Dear's major conclusions about Simpson being there. So sorry, no Gospel on me...I'm just a guy who is blown away by how so many may have been so wrong about something so big for so long (and that again includes me, until last year).

Now...did you have some sort of actual point to make?

Here's one for you to address: What would Occam say about the reason why a man falsifies his time card at the exact time that gives him an alibi for a murder? What's the most "parsimonious" explanation for that?

a reply to: bronco60

And we do understand that Occams Razor is not a factual determinant, but only a reasonable assumption when faced with indeterminate information.

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: bronco60

And we do understand that Occams Razor is not a factual determinant, but only a reasonable assumption when faced with indeterminate information.

Why of course "we" do. Note the "most" in "most parsimonious" (his phrase, not mine, but that is the common understanding of the utility of Occam's razor).

So again...what is would Sir William of Occam say given the information presented?

If you are suggesting the author simply pulled the time card (or anything else) out of his ass that is your right, but does not sound like good critical thinking given he a) names his source, b) presents an image of the information in his book, c) is massively vulnerable to legal sanction if the information (not to mention blackmail) if it is fake, and d) thus far has not apparently suffered any such legal sanction or other pressure to retract it. Oh, and e) has vetted the information with other professionals in the fields for forensics and criminal justice.

a reply to: bronco60

I would say Occam is thinking wayy too much.

Quite honestly, I was just pointing out the obvious. I dont have much vested in either direction.

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: bronco60

I would say Occam is thinking wayy too much.

Quite honestly, I was just pointing out the obvious. I dont have much vested in either direction.

Since he's been dead for centuries, I'd say this is good news (for him anyway).

Assuming for the sake of argument Occam is still dead (via Occam's razor!) I'll step up with the blade and say it:

A person who falsifies the major alibi exculpating them in a murder is...ta da!...very likely involved in the murder.

He or anyone else is welcome to show me why this should not be the case.

a reply to: bronco60

"Very likely" doesnt really work too well in court.