It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OJ, "If I Did It"

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I watched the entire trial. I was hooked on it...seriously I was. There was one moment in the trial when evidence was being presented about the human footprints and dogtracks in the blood that was the kick-over for me believing OJ was there.

Follow along on this:

1. Nicole opened the front door of her house and in short order was grabbed from behind. The Akita was free to run out of the house because the door was not closed behind her.

2. The person who cut Nicole's throat (from behind her) cut through all the way to the spine and nicked the spine...almost cut her head completely off.

3. She pumped out in seconds

4. The dog DID walk through the blood pool, but did NOT enter the house again, nor go anywhere other than straight to the front gate leading to the street.

5. The bloody dog prints went down the sidewalk to the front gate and out onto the sidewalk along the street until they finally disappeared (all the blood was off the dog's feet). Some one had to let the Akita out the front gate onto the sidewalk.

6. The notorious "plaintiff wail of a dog" heard by a neighbor was the Akita wanting back into it's owner. The neighbor did not report hearing a dog's "attack bark" or as if it were in a fight, just "the plaintiff wail of a dog"..it was found wandering down the street.

It had to be some one the dog knew. There were no tracks of the dog as if it had lingered at any point where the blood pool was (i.e. no evidence presented that the dog stood its ground or attempted to attack the perpetrator(s)). The dog tracks show that the dog walked from the front door across the path of the place where Nicole bled out AFTER she had started bleeding out, and walked straight to the front gate where it was let out. I just don't believe this dog would have immediately followed a stranger-attacker to the front gate when his owner is getting her head virtually cut off. But I do believe it would follow one of its owners that way - even if the other owner is in distress. It is along this same path toward the gate that the Bruno Magli shoe prints (which OJ did own) were found.

I personally don't think OJ was the one that cut her throat. I think he was there, was the one that rang the doorbell, and then assisted in some way. I think he's the one that the let the dog out the front gate.

[edit on 10-28-2006 by Valhall]




posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Val, I m very intersted why you think it was more than one person, and why would more than jus OJ do this murder? I was talkng to someone during the trial and his theory was that it ws a drug cartel payback/message and OJ was to be there as part of his payback.

I pegged this man as the murderer when he was being chased in his Bronco. People that are not guilty do not do that. Even under stress of having to face being arrested for your ex-wifes murder it is not the action of an innocent man. Then the evidence found on his property, the Limo rivers statement, Kato's statements and just too much other information. I have to admitt I totally missed the Dog seeming to have walked through the blood while the victim was bleeding out. You dont last long with your carotid arteries cut.

No doubt about it though, it doesnt take any leap at all to know the man was guilty.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I know Alan Park, the limo driver, personally. We played softball on the same team in '95, during the the trial. We talked some, off the record, about his personal opinion. What he said leads me to agree with Val's scenario.

OJ was late for the limo, and he was in an agitated state. Alan said OJ kept going, "Whew, I'm hot!" and messing with the AC in the limo. Alan also said he was almost sure he saw a shadowy figure he assumed was OJ cross the lawn from the direction of Kato's place and go in the front door of the main house, 15 min. before OJ came out in a hurry to get to the airport for his flight.

There was also an overnight bag Alan was not allowed to touch. OJ was adamant that he carry that particular bag himself. I don't know if it was ever accounted for.

For the record, I think Kato was involved, too, but that is just a gut feeling, unsubstantiated by any reported facts.

link


[edit on 28-10-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The really crazy thing is that the point I refer to in the trial that made me convinced OJ was at least at the scene of the murders was during the presentation of a graphic exhibit by the defense. I'll see if there's not some site that has that particular exhibit, because it was as the defense lawyer talked through that poster that I became convinced some one who was familiar to the dog had to be there and lead it out the gate.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
i FOR ONE AM COMPLETELY oops ummmmmmmm well i cant even think of just one word...sick, dum founded, angry, I would love the chance to kill that SOB ive met fred goldman and his wife. hes a sarcastis ass but still, that bleep bleep bleeep er should die



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising


For the record, I think Kato was involved, too, but that is just a gut feeling, unsubstantiated by any reported facts.

link



Kato sure did raise my suspicions too. What a weird little duck he was. OJ will pay in either this life or the next one. Karma will always come back and kick your rear.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

5. The bloody dog prints went down the sidewalk to the front gate and out onto the sidewalk along the street until they finally disappeared (all the blood was off the dog's feet). Some one had to let the Akita out the front gate onto the sidewalk.

It had to be some one the dog knew. There were no tracks of the dog as if it had lingered at any point where the blood pool was (i.e. no evidence presented that the dog stood its ground or attempted to attack the perpetrator(s)). The dog tracks show that the dog walked from the front door across the path of the place where Nicole bled out AFTER she had started bleeding out, and walked straight to the front gate where it was let out. I just don't believe this dog would have immediately followed a stranger-attacker to the front gate when his owner is getting her head virtually cut off. But I do believe it would follow one of its owners that way - even if the other owner is in distress. It is along this same path toward the gate that the Bruno Magli shoe prints (which OJ did own) were found.

I personally don't think OJ was the one that cut her throat. I think he was there, was the one that rang the doorbell, and then assisted in some way. I think he's the one that the let the dog out the front gate.

[edit on 10-28-2006 by Valhall]

Val, what do you think about the theory of OJ's son doing the murder?
I think that would explain alot of things (see previous post) and the dog you mentioned would have to be familiar with Jason simpson, though it still might have been Oj that let it out.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
John,

I've never considered that. I really don't have any opinion on it. Can you provide some links to some reading on that theory? I don't know why he would do it. I think there is far too much that circumstantially points to O.J. though. As far as the drug-dealer theory, I really don't give that much serious thought at all. It's a defense-concocted theory that doesn't have much substance.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
John,

I've never considered that. I really don't have any opinion on it. Can you provide some links to some reading on that theory? I don't know why he would do it. I think there is far too much that circumstantially points to O.J. though. As far as the drug-dealer theory, I really don't give that much serious thought at all. It's a defense-concocted theory that doesn't have much substance.
I will look for some more links other then the one I posted. Ill post back later after I have looked into it more and have found more sources.

[edit on 28-10-2006 by JohnDoe43]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Sorry JohnDoe! I did not see your previous post. I'm going to go read the links you provided right now.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Interesting theory, JohnDoe. Also, the more broad-sweeping theory of Nicole and her sister being in with the drug-Mafia is interesting (more interesting than Jason actually). The whole theory during the trial that the defense tried to push was that the murders were because Faye Resnick owed drug money...it was a pretty lame attempt. But this I find interesting:


The murder of Ron and Nicole was among a string of murders of people associated with Simpson, Ron, and Nicole. Casimir Sucharski, a friend of Simpson, was murdered two weeks after Ron and Nicole. On March 19, 1995, Simpson's friend, record company promoter Charles Minor, was murdered. On July 30, 1993, eleven months before the famous double murder, Ron Goldman's friend Brett Cantor was killed with a knife in a manner identical to Ron and Nicole: from behind and across the throat and stabbed repeatedly on the arms and chest. Michael Nigg, a waiter at the Mezzaluna (where Ron Goldman was also a waiter) was shot in the head and killed. Another Mezzaluna waiter barely survived a car bombing.


The bolded part in particular. That's a little too much of a coincidence, huh?



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Well, its a well known fact OJ commited the murders. This fact isnt of any real significance. The reason OJ was found not guilty was for racial issues. Remember that rodney king was beaten a few years ealier and the cops, were definately guilty of going WAY overboard, were acquited. Riots followed where many innocent people, who had nothing to do with the acquital, were beaten brutally.

In some ways I think OJ's trial was an over compensation. A way to say "sorry". Of course it might of been feared that if oj was found guilty more violence would occur. The media had turned the issue into a racial issue.

In both cases, justice was not served and the trials were travesties.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
JohnDoe,

After looking into the drug connection thing I still have to reject it. It seems almost all of it is defense-concocted and I really can't find anything firm to back it up. It's like urban legend stuff just being repeated over and over, but you can't actually find "the facts" it's based on.

I still believe O.J. had Nicole killed, and I still believe he was there when it happened. I mean the man is so twisted in the head he thinks this statement...


"Let's say I committed this crime ... Even if I did do this, it would have been because I loved her very much, right?"


...is a rational, sane statement to make in an interview.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   

..is a rational, sane statement to make in an interview.


Or anywhere else....

Except in the mind of someone experiencing a very common guilt complex and attempting to justify his actions within his own mind.

I have seen this a 1000 times in interviews with criminals. They really do justify their actions completely within their own psyche to alleviate the internal repulsion that feel at their actions.

This is one good reason why the Polygraph is NOT accepted as "Prima Facie" evidence and therefor excluded in court proceedings except at the behest of the defense.

Semper



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Look, everyone and their mother knows that OJ did it but unfortunately our judicial system is tailored to the rich, the famous and if you are caucasian it definitely helps. OJ got off but lost his wealth and ability to earn a living. He won't profit that much from this book without the gov taking what they want to settle his debt. I don't know how much he owes to the families or how much was satisfied from sale of his property so how much do you think his book would sell and how much would he have left?



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
OJ's guilt or innocence.

I believe the ultimate Jury in this case will be his Children. One day perhaps, one or both will come forward, in public, and share with the world, who they believe actually killed their mother.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
5 deaths of people who worked or knew someone worked at the same restraunt within a year with 3 of them having the same m.o.: That's what I would call highly suspicious coincidences. With OJ's history of domestic violence, the infamously lazy LAPD put together the weakest case against the likeliest suspect. How many death row inmates have been wrongly imprisoned only to be freed after being found innocent years later? Every screams that OJ got away with it but it's been said that as many as 80 innocent men have been executed in the last 100 years in the US. Don't get me wrong, I believe he may have had something to do with it but didn't the victims deserve absolutely the strongest case possible which they sure didn't get from the LAPD. And what about the other 3 murders related to the MezzaLuna restraunt? Where's the cry and hue for them?
There ain't no such things as coincidence.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Well it looks like News Corp. canceled the whole thing, the book and the FOX broadcast network special.

Glad they pulled it, but OJ was probably already paid.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I saw something about this on the Geraldo Rivera At Large tv show the other day. To be honest, even the idea of it is absolutely disgusting. To think that he would do that to his kids.... write a book about how their mother was murdered. Innocent or not. Disgusting.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Murdoch backed out of both the book deal and the interview.



Rupert Murdoch's media companies have cancelled plans for a controversial book by OJ Simpson and televised interview with him.

The book and programme If I Did It, in which Mr Simpson describes how he would have killed his ex-wife and her friend, had caused public outrage.

Mr Murdoch said he was "sorry for any pain this has caused."

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 2006/11/20 by GradyPhilpott]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join