OJ Simpson: The Case Reviewed

page: 3
91
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
All I can say is WOW!!! There was a lot of worked put into this thread. I've always be under the conclusion that OJ was guilty and that the reason for his dismissal of the guilty charge was an outstanding legal team. He had some of the finest legal minds representing him in his murder trial.

However, after reading the introduction of the thread I am stunned!!! I never really knew the whole eldest son scenario. After the evidence being presented about Jason Simpson's mental state and his interest in knives, one can see that he could possibly be the killer all along. What a sad day that a professional police department like the LAPD would overlook OJ's son's testimony regarding events surrounding the murder.

If OJ took the fall for his son, shame on him. He is an accomplice and will always be. I can understand a love of a father for their first born son but murder is a serious offense. OJ should have told the truth and even if his son turned out to hate him as a result. To me a father is to do right by their son and if he knew his son was the killer he should have told him to turn himself in. That is the best way for OJ to show his love for his son but it is tough love something the boy needed more than anything.




posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I can not find anything that say's what Jason Simpson is doing now. There appears to be a rumor that he is dead. Hopefully someone can find something on this guy.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
The OP says:

"The big point here was that OJ was called sometime that evening. It was a brief phone call and possibly made by Jason in a frantic cry for help. OJ drove over there, their is no question about that."

There is NO QUESTION about that? Says who? WHO says a phone call was made? Did the phone company verify that? ALL calls made can be retreived if needed. I am sure that the phone records were gone thru with a fine toothed comb...of course they were because at trial they discussed the calls made by all others in that time frame. Why would they ignore a call at that exact time from OJ's son?

You are GUESSING, and that is all this is...a guess. When you guess and make a blanket statement like " no question about it", you are showing your prejudice. There are MANY questions.

" POSSIBLY made by Jason"...." OJ drove over there " and " there is no question about that ", are ALL guesses UNSUPPORTED by ANY evidence. Why not just sqay: Hey, lets guess about this...that at least would be accurate.

Do I believe that OJ was guilty? Of COURSE!! Did the cops do their usual trickery to insure a conviction? Of COURSE!! Thats why Henry Lee stated that " Something is wrong' with the blood evidence on the socks...they could NOT have transffered fluids as alleged by the cops. It was the ' help' from vanAtter and Fuhrman thta added the phoney evidence; no doubt they are used to adding elements to make a case stick.

There are TOO MANY times when the defense found LIES from VanATTER and Fuhrman to believe them. VanAtter lied on the stand and carried evidence, blood evidence, for the first time in his career, around in the heat in his pocket instead of booking it at Parker Center. I could list another dozen examples of cop corruption in this case, but why bother?

OJ did it, and because the cops screwed up and planted evidence and lied, they lost. Simple. Rich and popular people get a frai trial in the USA...being poor and unknown would have gotten a conviction in this case for anyone else because only a top flight team could have discovered all that was found to exculpate OJ. End of story. The son is innocent.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
If he didn't do it, why did he run?



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkarella
 


Sorry it took so long to get you this reply. Apparently, NO one know where the hell Jason is. I looked all over and could not find anything about him. I suspect he is off the grid somewhere....



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


In the very beginning, I suspected Jason. I watched the trial daily for 8 months. While I always thought OJ did it, there was some doubt, because of Jason. I'm not sure about the theory of someone out to get Ron Goldman. Is there any evidence or background to substantiate that?



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


Not really, except that Goldman was not the "best" guy AND that he did hang around bad people and that he had a bad temper. Other than that, there seriously isn't that much....



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Knowledge
If he didn't do it, why did he run?


That's a good question. Maybe he didn't want the whole media fiasco? If he didn't do it himself I mean.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Finally, after reading the Murder trial transcript and the Civil trial transcipt there is a place to discuss!! Good work so far..

Ok, you must see the video : OJ GUILTY BUT NOT OF MURDER. This is another idea that maybe Jason had done it. Let me tell you thou, it wasn't Jason. It wasn't drug dealers, it wasn't Mark Furhman, it wasn't Judge Ito... It was OJ Simpson. Read the civil trial, read the December and January transcript, OJ is put on the stand. Oj should hire a director and producer cause he has his story down flat and should turn it in to a movie. The lawyers try and try to get OJ to slip up but only a few times did they catch OJ double talking. The only calls he made the night at the time of the murders were to his girlfriend. She wanted nothing more to do with him, she had already left town i believe so he left a message on her machine.. He rushed over to his girlfriends house to find she wasn't there only to get enraged and drive over to Nicoles. Poor Nicole never even seen it coming. She was hit on the back of the head with the knife, same kinda knife that OJ purchased a few months privious. As Nicole layed there, Ron came in, he did hollar, and a man that testified at the civil trial was walking his dog.. He heard someone yell " HEY, HEY , HEY ".. there is so much to this case, i'm glad theres others interested too..

Bud316



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
If OJ did not do it? How/why did he:
1. Get a deep cut in one of his fingers?
2. Run from Police with a bunch of money in his Bronco?
3. Have a history of abuse against Nicole?
4. Have his shoe print in the blood?



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I like to add to the post above:

Why did he leave enough blood to convict a whole village?

Why was he noticed hauling butt in the white bronco back home from Nicoles by a neighbor at around 10:45?

Why did he trip on the fence and scare the poop out of poor Kato (not the dog Kato )?

Someone asked earlier why was his hand cut but not the glove. Here's your answer: In the struggle with Ron, Ron probably grabbed the glove at somepoint of defence and just tossed it to the ground, hense the glove beng found under a bush, then OJ swipped at Goldman some 20+times, in the process he knicked his knuckle, pretty bad too... Oj might not have seen the glove to pick it up.. He was scared out of his wits, got back to the bronco, sped home, was noticed, climbed a fence, fell over it into the concrete wall that house Kato Katlin. He ran thru the little yard area behind katos house to the driveway.. OH NO! THE LIMODRIVER IS THERE! Oj walks to the Benz at the end of the driveway where he places a small black bag with the knife inside..He is also by the Limo driver and kato as they are both standing there as kato discusses his fears of being alone in the freakin dark..

Bud316



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMythLives
Yea, I mean OJ is strong SOB, but no matter how strong someone is if you are stabbing someone you are going to get injuries and lots of them.


Not really. You can never predict peoples reaction when they're face to face with a huge knife. You might think you'd want to protect yourself, but rest assured you'll most likely be evading and/or trying to run away, relying on passiveness to calm the situation.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Thank u for the info...it solved a lot of doubts



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Very Interesting- I had never heard of the Son Theory before now... Great Job!



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
That loser killed those two people and it came back to bite him cause now he is locked up. I think it was OJ and his oldest son, it seems two people would have been present to help control the situation. I remember when that loser took off and ran from the police. Why didn't he ever get into trouble for that? Any other citizen, that got away with murder would have been prosecuted for running from the law. I hope he rots in the jail cell he is sitting in now. What goes around comes around and he finally got a small fraction of what he deserved, at least it was something.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Victoria 1
 


Interesting theory. Very Interesting... I did not consider that it was both of them. It seems like a highly interesting theory. I will have to think about this one.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
You can bet your last doller that the son was vetted and examined closely by the cops and prosecutors and found to be NOT involved. Do you really think that anything presented here is NEW info? not hardly. It is a GUESS, and not a very good one.

Thats all there is to see here folks.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I had never known that his son was even thought about in the case. It's funny how his name was never so prevalent DURING the trial...

S&F, wonderful thread! I can't wait for #3!



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I also thought about the son before.

TWO THINGS:

1) When OJ said he rcd a cut on his hand from slamming down a glass, I believe that was true, but it was his son calling him to confess to the murders that night. I believe they did discover an incoming call from his son to his hotel that night.

2) Wouldn't he and his son HAVE CLOSE DNA MARKERS? Maybe that's where the confusion, and the subsequent dismissal by the jury, and the lethal litigation of Barry Scheck, of the DNA evidence.

Just thoughts.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MajesticJax
 


Blood markers between children and parents are close, remember with the recent case of Caylee and Casey Anthony. There were hairs foudn in the trunk, but the DNA marker could not return an accurate reading due to the DNA being very similar. It happens, I agree with what you wrote above as well. Anything is a possibility... and it makes sense.



new topics
top topics
 
91
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join