Great thread and Im going to check out the link you provided and watch the video.

Last year in my Criminal Law class we studied the OJ Simpson trial and I had to write a very long paper on it. The book we read and studied was:
Trial of the Century : People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, Schmalleger, Frank M.

I just finished reading "if I DID IT"....mainly because of my study on it in class. I wanted to see what the great OJ had to say.

Talk about creepy. He started out talking about his relationship with Nicole and placed majority of blame for all their problems on her. Some of the things he would say would make my eyes bug out At the point where he talked about the night of the murder....it was VERY confusing going from his story about the relationship to his "hypothetical" tale of "if he did it".

The line between both tales was nearly invisible....except for him saying "now remember, this part is hypothetical...." If you missed that line....you wouldn't have seen where he separated HIS reality from his hypothetical tale.

After *my* study of both books, I dont doubt at ALL that he did it. And I truly believe deep down in my gut, that "if I did it" was his true confession.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by greeneyedleo]

I just finished watching the E channel television special O.J., Nicole and Ron: Countdown to Murder, and I agree with you about the creepy factor. Simpson on camera as himself is never convincing.

I think he is a nervous and insecure man. Even if he told me what time it is, his manner would make me want to double check it. His insecurity is contagious. His lawyers were smart to keep him off the stand. He could tell you the truth in such a way that you would come away convinced that he was concealing something.

I'll be interested to read your reaction to the videos. They are more interesting than the linked conspiracy webpage, although that is worth a read, if only to become aware of a lot of oddities about the case and strange connections. What most people don't know is that there is a guy in the Simpson family who makes O.J. look like a model of sober stability, and this guy did not like Nicole. Watch the videos.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by ipsedixit]

Howdy to all you O.J. aficionados,

Having served as a crime reporter as well as a court reporter for years, I am here to tell you that O.J. Simpson was guilty as hell. If it had been you or me in the docket, they would still be piping air down to the hole in which we would have been imprisoned.

Here's what has been overlooked because it is not politically correct to speak about it: The black communities in Los Angeles looked up to O.J. as a hero, even an icon. Community leaders, as well as the informants on the street, made it clear that if O.J. was convicted, there would be major riots in the city, an eventuality that struck fear in hearts of both city and national leaders. Deals were made and the prosecution (which even I could have better conducted) lobbed softballs -- critical points were not pursued, the evidence came into question and the entire trial was turned into a circus.

Considering the half-baked prosecution case, I think most any fair minded individual would have agreed with the "not guilty" verdict -- reasonable doubt and all that.

The city stayed calm, the participants got their 15-minutes of fame, the lawyers and the media made big money and everyone was satisfied except Lady Justice, who had to pull the blindfold a little lower over her eyes.

Jim Marrs

Originally posted by Jim Marrs
Deals were made and the prosecution (which even I could have better conducted) lobbed softballs -- critical points were not pursued, the evidence came into question and the entire trial was turned into a circus.

Considering the half-baked prosecution case, I think most any fair minded individual would have agreed with the "not guilty" verdict -- reasonable doubt and all that.

The scenario that you are talking about could very well have played out just as you said. It would fit the well established fact (in CT circles) that the inverted ethical and moral values of American officialdom just never bottom out.

In spite of accepting that, there are solid reasons to question the popular perception, as William C. Dear does in the second linked video. Here are two of them:

1. The forensic lab people were not able to match the blood at the crime scene to O.J. Simpson with 100% certainly. That is a staggering blow to the prosecution, especially when another Simpson family member enters the picture as a suspect. The sort of match they were able to make is more along the lines that one would expect from a blood relative of O.J.s.
It would be very interesting if they were to try to match his blood with the crime scene blood.

2. Ronald Coleman was stabbed 19 times. It took ex-NFL star running back, O.J. Simpson, 19 cuts to take care of a young, in good shape, pretty boy. I know O.J. was not Mean Joe Green, but anyone as used to body contact rough housing as an NFL football player, is going to be more efficient and quick at subduing and dispatching Joe Public.

William Dear and several other experts have other serious doubts about the Simpson case. I think they are onto something.

It occurred to me that there might be a conspiracy in place in regard to not pursuing this case. It is still an open case. In light of the blood evidence quandary, and Jason Simpson's "issues" it would seem logical for the authorities to attempt to obtain a DNA sample from him for comparison purposes. As far as I know it is not happening. Why could that be?

Here's a suggestion. Suppose the LAPD pursued a case against "the overlooked suspect" and got enough evidence to convict him. Suppose he were put on trial and convicted. Imagine the field day O.J.s attornies would have suing various Hollywood luminaries who have committed themselves on film calling him a murderer. And not only suing them but also the broadcasters who spread the now demonstrable libels.

Suddenly we are back in conspiracy territory that most CTers recognize. Big media getting away with media murder. Something to ponder.


[edit on 6-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

i've been reading this thread and wondering if i shoul reply at all...but, what the hell...

i have a friend, and she has "prescient" dreams...she has, on more than a few occasions, correctly foretold future events, such as 9/11, etc etc.

anyway, the evening of the murders, before it was announced via media outlets, she said she had a dream that 2 men actually killed nicole and ron...neither of them OJ....although she says he was present. she said she woke up, saying to herself "what a weird dream", then she watched the news the next day.

i know it sounds way out there, but i do believe in the power of dreams to fortell future events, i believe that my friend does not lie about her abilities, and i also believe that the manner in which those two were murdered would be almost impossible for one man with arthritis and bad knees to commit by himself.

OJ simpson is a Sack

sorry had a computer problem
to finish he constantly distorts the truth and blurd the lines between right wrong just and unjust I hope that he is stopped in his tracks this time..




Respectfully
GEO

[edit on 2/8/2008 by geocom]

Howdy el cid,

While not debating the reality of dreams, I can certainly buy into the idea that others killed Nicole et al at O.J.'s bidding. After all, he hired thugs to try and retake his memoriabilia which shows he is not above hiring others to do his dirty work.

Of course, if murder by hire is indeed the truth of the event, it still makes him guilty.

Jim Marrs