O.J. SIMPSON: Buried Knife Found At O.J.'S Estate

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: intrptr

If it didn't fit, you must acquit.

I saw it live, I know how hollywood that was, in appearance.

How about them shoes? They fit real well.
His DNA even better.

His motive, fits.

His opportunity, (no alibi).

His means, well he was a meany, historical record of severe abuse… possessive, vengeful, megalomania, paranoid.

The cut on OJs finger wasn't a lie. What are you proposing, that he cut his finger to make it look like he (OJ) did it?

To cover for his son?

Really? OJ blamed everyone but himself, including Nicole, drug dealers, gangs, the cops, detectives, forensic labs, the prosecution…

everyone but him. Thats what the depositions were designed to bring out, how he would lie about everything, his abuse, his stalking of Nicole, the forensics, his whereabouts, the shoes, cut on finger, gloves…

e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g…

If there is no OJ dna on the knife then it doenst matter.

a reply to: Boadicea

I also saw that show that made a pretty good case for how it could have been OJ's son. It would explain the blood evidence if OJ's son called him after the murders and OJ went to him and tried to protect him. There was definitely something odd going on between Nicole and the son and he was mentally disturbed.

Would OJ have taken the "wrap" for his kid...IDK ? He was pretty convincing that HE didn't do it, and maybe he felt because he actually didn't do it, he would get off, which he did. I'm not sure what lengths a parent might go to to protect their child. However if this is the case, his repugnant behavior calling on the police to find the "real killer", knowing full well who the real killer was, showed he is as mentally ill as his kid.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
a reply to: Boadicea

I also saw that show that made a pretty good case for how it could have been OJ's son. It would explain the blood evidence if OJ's son called him after the murders and OJ went to him and tried to protect him. There was definitely something odd going on between Nicole and the son and he was mentally disturbed.

Thank you! Glad someone else remembers it too. I don't watch much TV, so I'm terrible at remembering the names of shows.

Would OJ have taken the "wrap" for his kid...IDK ? He was pretty convincing that HE didn't do it, and maybe he felt because he actually didn't do it, he would get off, which he did. I'm not sure what lengths a parent might go to to protect their child.

That's the way I have looked at it too. Most parents would do pretty much everything for their kids... would that include a murder rap? I don't know. Most parents would probably consider it at least. Would OJ, as a Black man in L.A., have such deep distrust for police that he would feel it was the "best" option? I don't know. Or, like you said, maybe OJ figured since he was innocent, that he could never be convicted, and decided it was worth the cost and the time to protect his son? And then, of course, there's this:

However if this is the case, his repugnant behavior calling on the police to find the "real killer", knowing full well who the real killer was, showed he is as mentally ill as his kid.

His son has very definite mental issues, including violent tendencies and ideation (from what I've read -- I don't know personally!). Is this genetic? I can't help but also think about what we're learning about football players and concussions and other injuries... how would these injuries play out? Especially if mental/emotional issues were already present?

One more thought... OJ had already lost a son to drowning. As a parent, I cannot even imagine that pain and probably guilt. How would that have played into OJ's mindset? Would he be that much more motivated to "save" this son?

Lots of questions and no answers.

And still nobody mentions small stuff like Goldmans injuries, his knuckles were messed up from fighting his attacker, he was a strong martial arts expert and he fought for his life till the end... and all OJ got was a cut ????

a reply to: IAMTAT

I don't think he can be tried again, even if it turns out to be the knife OJ used. He was already acquitted by a jury.

Why bother, considering he's in jail pretty much the remainder of his life.

originally posted by: xizd1
Chain of evidence will make it difficult to admit in court.

the case cannot be retried due to valid legal protections under the law. but the knife can tell the public what really happened if it is related at all.

you see we, the public, are not a jury, an involved lawyer or involved judge so the public is under no obligation whatsoever to presume innocence or accept the results of a trial no matter what some pundit or other commentator may say to the contrary. In their mind there is no difference between saying someone who is obviously guilty is guilty and taking that same person out and executing them on our own. The received wisdom of smarmy gits who think their reasoning is superior to the "common" man's. They are effete snobs that look down on everyone else. Arrogance and ignorance are twins.

I've lost a few knives working outside so I feel it may just be a knife that maybe someone working on the grounds might have lost. That is more common than people think. You go to plant a tree and there is a root in the way, cut the root and forget to pick up the knife and it gets burried when you backfill the plant or tree.

I wouldn't automatically assume it is the weapon, it could be but chances are it is just a lost knife. The way the evidence was handled makes it most likely not admissible and he was already gone to trial for this already so he can't be retried for the same crime. He can be charged with a different crime though.

Double jeopardy only means they can't use the same evidence they used in the first trial to convict in the second trial, if there is one.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yep!

Over 20 years in the ground, if it were the knife, you couldn't get any DNA off it or even prove rust was from blood or the elements

All my life I though he did it, then I read a little bit about it and the cop saying he dint plant evidence in the first interrogation and then pleaded the fifth amendment when asked the same a few month later, I'm not so sure now.

The guy may as well done it, he paid for those murders, not with jail, but his life was ruined ever since.

originally posted by: Restricted
Double jeopardy only means they can't use the same evidence they used in the first trial to convict in the second trial, if there is one.

That's not correct, it means they cannot charge him with capital murder for Nicole and Ron Goldman

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes....lot's of questions still unanswered in my mind too. At the end of the day, one of them murdered Ron and Nicole...and it was brutal and very sad.

I think this whole knife thing is probably BS ....the timing is just too convenient with some kind of mini series about the OJ Trials.....I have watched a few episodes, and it is pretty interesting, especially giving some insight of all the lawyers involved.

So are the authorities looking at charging the dodo who kept the knife with obstruction of justice? In any case there wouldn't be much they can do with this now.

The murders were committed by a hired killer he was very large had long blond hair and it had nothing to do with OJ...
They were killed over drugs and a lot of owed money which was nicoles debt...
Ron just happened to get in the way.... he did try to defend her and was a somewhat skilled martial artist but he got beat up badly then obviously killed...
OJ did goto the crime scene right after it happened narrowly missing the murders and the exit of the murderer...he had problems and one of them was his love for nicole which at this time was an obsession for him and he does suffer from rage issues because of his narcissism (he cant stand not getting his way)but also because nicole played on his emotions and was rather confused herself...
OJ left footprints as he observed the aftermath first hand realizing in his state of shock he couldn't even call the police and that he would be blamed freaked out and fled the area.
In his rush and dismay he fell and tried to right his fall cutting his finger leaving his own blood in the bronco.
Then on his way home realizing he was late and that his limo and driver were already waiting for him took a diff route to hide the fact he was not at home to provide himself an alibi for a crime he did not commit...
The police after checking OJs alibi checked into it with the limo driver who stated he say someone run around the back of the house that looked like OJ the police seen the bronco parked in an obvious hurry due to its odd placement.
It was at that point in time Mark Furman decided OJ was guilty and planned to plant evidence found at the crime scene which were Rons gloves although he was not wearing them instead had them held in hand at the time the fight broke out.
After Knowing OJ had a cut on his finger a cut was placed on the bloodstained glove to further implicate OJ...
That's a strange dream I had about this crime... I thought I would share it with you...

Ya know, this case has always pissed me off.

Regardless of anyone's personal beliefs of OJ's guilt or innocence, the fact is that the man was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers. That should have been the end of this. The state was given every opportunity to prove their case in court, instead they opted to make it into a media circus and lost.

The subsequent civil trial was complete BS and should NEVER happen. If he'd been found guilty in the criminal trial, fine, Ron Goldman's father perform your trained seal act and greedily claim all of OJ's possessions (of course while reminding everyone that it wasn't money you were after... Riiiiight... wink, wink, nudge, nudge.) At the end of the day, your waiter son apparently netted you more money than he ever could have earned at his service job in 10 lifetimes, giving two children who had lost their mother a dual insult of also losing their lifestyles and having their names drug throw SNIP in the process, good job, man!

The case did not serve society even if OJ was the killer. The man posed zero threat to society... If he did kill the two, it was a crime of passion. Crime of passion don't translate to cold blooded, ruthless killer who is a danger to everyone around him. No, instead we managed to see yet another popular figure run through the mud, doors opened to ridiculous claims of racism (as if Orenthal was anything but beloved among white America), and the legal system was displayed to be the attention whoring farce it truly is.

In short, who cares if OJ did it? It's been 20 years, let it go already.

a reply to: IAMTAT

After so many years and been in the ground any DNA will be corrupted, I will be surprised if they find anything on the knife at all.

I remember OJ was supposed to have thrown it away in an airport trashcan.

From 1995

The prosecution believes that Simpson stashed bloody clothes and a knife inside a small knapsack he carried out of his house. The bag wasn't seen again when Simpson checked his luggage at the airport. The suspicion is that Simpson stuffed the knapsack inside a larger bag.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

In short, who cares if OJ did it? It's been 20 years, let it go already.

What?
I'm still hung up on Lizzie Borden getting away with murder.