OJ Revisited (Introducing the FFS Guest Blogger Program)

Submitted By Blouise

ED. NOTE: In Re the FFS Guest Blogger Program

It is a great pleasure to announce the first publication under our Guest Blogger Program at FFS. The way this works is simple.  If you have an idea for a column you wish to write for us, send either a query and/or a draft of the article to eic.ffs@gmail.com. Our administrators will consider the submission and either refuse or accept (possibly with editorial suggestions) to publish the article. The article may have any byline you wish, either your real name or a nom de plume. If selected, your column may be edited for grammar or layout, but the content is entirely up to you.

Today’s entry is from longtime blog friend Blouise. During the recent discussions of the Ferguson, MO situation, she and bettykath (also a longtime blog friend) started discussing the manipulation of juries in the context of the OJ Simpson trial. Being extremely good guests, they asked if they could start a thread to discuss that matter discretely as to not clutter up the Ferguson thread(s) with OJ talk. Without further ado, here is “OJ Revisited” by Blouise. – Gene Howington, Editor-in-Chief

O.J. Simpson

O.J. Simpson

Back in December of 2014, bettykath and I discovered we shared doubts about the guilt of OJ Simpson in the Brown/Goldman murders. Towards that end, we read the book, “O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It” by William C. Dear, and wished to discuss both our original doubts and points made by the author in his book.

Not wanting to hijack an editor’s thread, I asked Gene if we could have a thread of our own in which the subject of the OJ murder trial could be discussed. He graciously agreed to give us a thread.

The book referenced above is interesting but be warned that the author spends a great deal of time honking his own horn. Never the less, the circumstantial evidence he presents is compelling. The author postulates that OJ was at the crime scene after the murders, but did not commit the murders.

I admit that from the slow speed car chase on June 17, 1994 forward, I lived and breathed the OJ Simpson Murder Trial. I have always thought that the jury got it right. Most people in my peer group thought I was nuts.

Let us look back:

At approximately 12:10 a.m. on June 13, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found in the 10 x 10 foot front entryway to Brown’s condominium in Brentwood, California. Based on the evidence found at that scene and at the home of Brown’s former husband, OJ Simpson, the Las Angeles police and DA’s office suspected OJ was the murderer.

On June 20, OJ was arraigned, pleaded not guilty and was held without bail. A grand jury was convened for the indictment process but was dismissed within two days due to the intense media coverage that the defense claimed would influence their neutrality. A probable cause hearing was then held which gave the defense access to evidence they would not have had had the grand jury remained seated.

The judge ruled there was enough evidence to bring him to trial and the next step in the process required the formal charges for murder and OJ’s plea, “Absolutely, one hundred percent, not guilty.” The Superior Court then moved the trial from the Santa Monica Courthouse to the Los Angeles Superior Court downtown, which widened the jury pool. At the beginning of November the jury selection process was completed with 12 jurors and 12 alternates seated on November 3. We were off and running on January 24, 1995.

There is a good synopsis of the trial itself here for those of you who wish to refresh your memory.

In his book, Dear considers all the contested areas and presents compelling evidence that OJ may have gone to Bundy but only after the murders had been committed. Mr. Dear claims that there was a suspect the Los Angeles police and DA’s office never interviewed and from whom no fingerprints, blood or DNA samples were taken.  This suspect was OJ’s son, Jason Simpson, whom OJ went to trial to protect.

On October 3, 1995, after 4 hours of deliberation, the jury returned with a not guilty verdict. Two years later the Brown and Goldman families won their civil suit against Simpson.

“There were a lot of differences between these two trials, but they all pale in comparison to the fact that one jury was predominantly white and the other predominantly black,” says Brandeis University professor Jeffrey Abramson, author of a book on the jury system. “Two juries, two societies, two codes of justice.”

To tell you the truth, I think both juries got it right.

Bettykath and I are now going to have a good time exploring the trial and all things associated with it. Please feel free to join us.

About FFS Guest Blogger

Guest authors at "Flowers for Socrates"
This entry was posted in Civil Law, Crime, Criminal Law, Evidence Law, FFS Update(s), Law Enforcement, Media, Murder. Bookmark the permalink.

96 Responses to OJ Revisited (Introducing the FFS Guest Blogger Program)

  1. Elaine M. says:

    Welcome aboard as guest blogger, Blouise!

    I’ll admit I’m one of those people who has always thought that O. J. did it.

    *****

    The O.J. Simpson Saga Began 20 Years Ago Today — Here’s Why His Son Should Be A Suspect
    http://www.businessinsider.com/oj-simpson-murders-and-jason-simpson-2014-6#prior-to-the-killings-ojs-son-jason-was-diagnosed-with-intermittent-rage-disorder-aka-jekyll-and-hyde-syndrome-and-was-given-the-drug-depakote-to-control-his-rage-and-seizures-1

    Excerpt:
    Prior to the killings, O.J.’s son Jason was diagnosed with “intermittent rage disorder” (AKA Jekyll and Hyde syndrome) and was given the drug Depakote to control his rage and seizures.

    Jason abused alcohol, ecstasy, and cocaine as early as age 14. Police reports indicate that he was arrested at least four times (including DUI, driving with a suspended license, and assault with a deadly weapon) while medical records reveal at least three suicide attempts.

  2. Carterbo says:

    I like the creation of the “guest blogger.” Nice addition to an already attention holding site. I followed the trial daily and I have a few questions.

    “A grand jury was convened for the indictment process but was dismissed within two days due to the intense media coverage that the defense claimed would influence their neutrality.”

    Who makes this decision? And what is the percentage per year of this occurring throughout courts in the US?

  3. eniobob says:

    Oj and Ferguson discussion on the same day.Wow !

    I guess it goes back to this :

    “Grand Juries Should Be Abolish
    The secrecy, lack of oversight, and disregard for the rules of evidence do not serve justice.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/12/abolish_grand_juries_justice_for_eric_garner_and_michael_brown.html

    • Valerie Anemone says:

      Don’t believe anything Slate says, they are a left wing blog. Dear is only hawking a story for money.

  4. blouise says:

    Carterbo,

    Supervising Judge Cecil J. Mills of Superior Court dismissed the GJ in response to a request by the Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti,

    You can refresh your memory of the unusual event here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/25/us/citing-news-deluge-simpson-case-judge-halts-jury-s-inquiry.html

    For those unfamiliar with the term: A probable cause hearing may refer to a preliminary hearing that happens well after the filing of charges, at which the court hears testimony in order to determine whether it’s more likely than not that the defendant committed the alleged crimes. If the court finds “probable cause,” then the case may proceed to trial.

    It was, in my opinion, one of the first steps indicating the level of skill of the lawyers handling the defense as they would now get a preview of the evidence and prosecution trial strategy that would not have been unavailable to them that early had the GJ not been dismissed.

  5. blouise17 says:

    would not have been unavailable …would not have been available

  6. blouise17 says:

    eniobob,

    The prosecution found themselves hoisted on their own petard. The age old practise of vilifying the defendant backfired. The audio tapes from a previous event involving Brown/Simpson noted in the nytimes article above were similar to the Brown strongarm video, tactic-wise. It worked in Ferguson.

  7. Justice has cataracts says:

    I always thought OJ was protecting his children. But not for the authors reason. I thought a drug dealer did it and OJ knew him and didn’t want to testify because of his family.

    Maybe seeing OJ play when I was a kid clouded my judgement but I never thought he could do that.

    Although the evidence was against him.

  8. blouise17 says:

    Elaine,

    At the times of the murders, Jason was serving a 24 month probation for assault with a deadly weapon. The LAPD and DA’s office never interviewed him. Later, at trial, Cochran called OJ’s sister, mother, and oldest daughter to the stand but never presented Jason as a witness.

  9. buckaroo says:

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”
    — Sir Walter Scott

  10. blouise17 says:

    Justice,

    Although there are suggestions of drug involvement concerning Resnick, the restaurant where the Brown’s had dinner that night, even the “rage” at the murder site, I doubt drug dealers were actively involved in the crime. Though F. Lee Bailey did a good job in muddying the waters on that issue which did help in diverting any attention on Jason.

  11. blouise17 says:

    Note:

    I am working off my Kindle which often decides what I meant to say and auto-corrects what I actually typed. My apologies.

  12. blouise17 says:

    I want to thank Gene and the staff of editors at FFS for expanding the program to include FFS Guest Bloggers. As guests we get to sit at the table and enjoy the repast without concern for what goes on in the kitchen … ie … we have no access to the nuts and bolts of the blog.

    We are, however, required to: “As you make your bed, so you must lie on it”

    bettykath is traveling and will be with us soon.

    Room service!!

  13. Mike Spindell says:

    In the middle of a good playoff game I check in to find this piece which I’ve expectantly waiting for. I’ll savor reading it tonight. Thank you Blouise and BettyKath because as you know we share similar feelings about the OJ case.

  14. Harvey says:

    I don’t want to make the error of assuming what you mean when you state that you believe that both juries got it right. Will you expand on that with emphasis on the civil verdict?

  15. blouise17 says:

    Harvey,

    You are insightful my man. How, exactly, do we reconcile those two codes of Justice. Can they operate side by side and still both be right?

    I have to meet some family obligations right now but I wanted to take a quick minute to acknowledge your question and assure you that I will answer it. It will be my own opinion, nothing more, and, I hope, if you disagree, you will feel free to express your opinion.

    Suffice it for right now … one black code of Justice and one white creates the gray that is our reality.

  16. Slartibartfast says:

    Yay Blouise! (and curses–you beat me to getting published on FFS!)

    As with the Ferguson situation, I think evidence needs to be considered in the context of a specific theory or group of possible theories. Given a group of theories (or one theory and its negation), any piece of evidence will either be consistent with the theory or it will contradict it. However, there is a big difference between evidence being consistent with a theory and evidence which supports a theory. The former is a statement regarding the evidence and the theory and nothing else, while the latter does not make any sense at all without some competing alternative (the negation of the theory, if nothing else).

    Too often, I find that people try to present evidence being consistent with their theory as something that supports their theory instead. In fact, one of the authors on this very blog has shown a penchant for that practice. One way to recognize this is if someone claims that evidence supports a theory without mentioning an alternative that the evidence makes less likely.

    In this case, I think that the evidence is consistent with alternative explanations, but I’m not sure that there is any evidence that supports those alternatives over the theory that OJ committed the murders. To me, this is the key to the discussion (once it is established that there are alternatives which are consistent with the evidence, anyway).

    Just my $0.02.

  17. Carterbo says:

    blouise17 says: bettykath is traveling and will be with us soon.

    I’ll be interested in reading the comments from bettykath with regards to OJ. I thought before the Zimmerman verdict came down, bettykath held their own against others on the other site.

  18. blouise says:

    Slarti,

    Lord, I hate to be so trite but, If It Don’t Fit, You Must Acquit.

    The blood evidence simply didn’t compute. Goldman was slashed and stabbed over 22 times. Brown’s head was almost completely severed from her body. There were over 3 pints of blood which spurted from the bodies and that was contained within a space that was no more than 10′ X 10′ foot area containing entryway steps, walled sides, fenced sides, plantings and a tree. In other words, enclosed, close, and crowded. The murderer had to be drenched in blood flying from the knife and from the severed arteries and other wounds inflicted on the victims. Yet, only miniscule amounts are found in OJ’s vehicle and at Rockingham. Furthermore, the LAPD dismantled all the plumbing at Rockingham and found no trace of blood at all. None.

    Given the timeline, where did OJ wash all that blood off his body before he got into his vehicle and then into his home? The prosecution spent time talking about his dumping the clothes and weapon but where in the hell did he shower and how did he get from Bundy to the shower without using his vehicle? And did he strip off those clothes before climbing into the vehicle? Then, after somehow making it from Bundy to Rockingham leaving only minute traces of blood in the vehicle, getting rid of clothes and murder weapon, he leaves a pair of socks contaminated with blood on the floor of his bedroom in clear view. And what about Vannatter’s test tube of blood? Then, of course, there was Fung.

    From the NYTimes 4/13/95:

    “At the preliminary hearing in July, Mr. Fuhrman, the man defense lawyers have accused of planting a bloody glove behind Mr. Simpson’s home, described four spots of blood he had seen on the doorsill of Mr. Simpson’s car on June 13, shortly after the bodies of Mrs. Simpson and Mr. Goldman were found. At trial, he said he had called them to Mr. Fung’s attention.

    But nowhere in Mr. Fung’s notes from last June did he record anything about the stains or Mr. Fuhrman’s comments about them. Under cross-examination today, he said he saw at least one or two spots for himself on June 13, but did not lift them or mention them in his notes. Nor did he record anything from a second inspection in July, when he said he conducted a test that presumptively confirmed that the spots were blood.

    Mr. Fung said that the second inspection, coming after Mr. Fuhrman had testified at the preliminary hearing and before Mr. Fung was to testify, had been made at the request of Marcia Clark, the chief prosecutor. Mr. Fung nonetheless insisted that he could not recall reporting to Ms. Clark on what he had seen, even though he was to take the stand at the preliminary hearing shortly thereafter.

    Is this evidence consistent and/or supportive of the theory that  OJ Simpson committed two very violent and bloody murders? The best I can glean from that evidence is that he might have gone to Bundy but he returned from there with very little blood, less than a small thimbleful, on his person.

    That’s number 1 on my list of reasonable doubts and we haven’t even begun to look at Fuhrman.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Blouise,

      I’d say that while the blood evidence is possibly (barely) consistent with the theory that OJ did it, it supports (maybe strongly supports) an alternative theory. On the other hand, I think that Fuhrman does more to muddy the waters than anything else–it seems like the only thing he really proves is a lack of integrity in the system.

  19. blouise says:

    Fuhrman was the answer to the defense’s “how do we play the race card” prayer. They saw him at the hearing and knew, in my opinion, he was god-sent. It must be remember that all this took place just a couple of years after the whole Rodney King thing.

    Fuhrman found both gloves, most of the blood drops in the dark and he’s the one who jumped the wall onto Simpson’s estate grounds without a search warrant. In the beginning he was the prosecution’s fair haired boy, the good looking, confident, well spoken jury pleaser. At trial he denies using the N-word and is then impeached by his own words on tape during interviews with a woman developing a screenplay wherein he uses the N-word 41 times in a manner such as: “Yeah we work with niggers and gangs. You can take one of these niggers, drag ’em into the alley and beat the shit out of them and kick them. You can see them twitch. It really relieves your tension.”

    Both gloves and a many of the blood drops and smears were his discovered evidence.

  20. Mike Spindell says:

    Blouise,

    Great start and I can’t wait for BettyKath to weigh in. I’ve always been a skeptic about the OJ case and had immersed myself in it at the time. Here is a schematic of what raised my suspicions.

    1. From the beginning the Prosecution was using the media to cast suspicion on OJ.
    2. In the pre-trial hearing the testimony of the lead detective and Furman at OJ’s house seemed staged and not believable as to why Furman jumped the fence.
    3. Furman’s racist history combined with his meeting OJ & Nicole before during a domestic violence call, seemed to me a motivation to pin the crime on this successful Black man who married a beautiful blonde.
    4. Furman’s testimony regarding finding the bloody glove didn’t seem credible.
    5. As you mentioned above the timeline presented was too tight for OJ to have gone to Nicole’s, committed what had to have been bloody murders, clean himself up and be ready for the Driver to pick him up.
    6. The manner of the murders was consistent with the M.O. of Columbian drug dealers in their brutality.
    7. The coincidence of returning Nicole’s glasses from the restaurant and that he just happened to pass it on his way home seemed contrived. Especially in tandem with the fact of the way to Nicole’s Bathtub was lined with lit candles as if a prelim for a tryst.
    8. The blood evidence was so sparse as to lend itself to the possibility of it having been planted by the police.

    Those are some of my suspicions regarding whether OJ comitted the murders. I believe with those alone raise enough reasonable doubt for the jury to acquit. Of those the timeline holds the most weight. The pre-trial publicity should have been enough to convict OJ in America, but fortunately the jury the jury had the right makeup to see it more clearly. What added to that was that I thought Clark and Darden came off as not only inept, but as two prosecutors on the make for better things and confident this would be their springboard to better things.

  21. Mike Spindell says:

    Sorry for the errors above my smartphone isn’t the best way to post comments.

  22. Carterbo says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t F.Lee Bailey’s contention the Furhman used the N word based upon Furhman telling a fictional scenario to an aspiring screenwriter? I believe Judge Ito was the answer to the defense to allow Furhman be painted as a racists. The thoughts Furhman had to a fictional story to an aspiring screenwriter had no place in this trial.

  23. blouise says:

    Carterbo,

    The screenwriter who interviewed Fuhrman was considering doing a script on women officers in the LAPD. Had Fuhrman, when asked under oath if he had ever used the N-word, simply said, yes, the tapes would have been useless to the defense.

    Once again, keep the context of the Rodney King event in mind and remember the number of blacks on the jury. The tapes impeached the witness’ sworn testimony and Fuhrman went from Marcia Clark’s showcase LAPD officer to Officer Seldom Seen. OJ may have risen out of the slums to an estate on Rockingham but thanks to Fuhrman’s decision to deny using the N-word under oath, to the jury he was just another nigger in the eyes of the LAPD.

    Cochran had tapped into the two codes of Justice. Whites viewed Fuhrman as misunderstood, blacks saw him as same-old, same-old. (Just for fun, think Ferguson, the strongarm video, and Hands Up, Don’t Shoot)

  24. bettykath says:

    Internet availability is sparse 😦

    I didn’t have TV at the time (or since) so didn’t follow the OJ case except for the headlines. My impression was that the judge didn’t do a good job of controlling his courtroom; that the prosecutors, although enthusiastic in their prosecution (unlike those prosecuting Zimmerman) were not up to the job; and the defense attorneys, well, how could all those egos get into the same room. The lack of blood on OJ and the lack of OJ’s DNA, except for what was planted, as well as the racism of the LAPD, left me with doubt. I thought the criminal jury had it right. The viciousness of the crime suggested that it was rage induced or the possibility of steroids. I believe OJ was a halfback, a position relying more on speed and agility than the kind of brute strength that would suggest the use of steroids, and he was no longer playing. The result is that I didn’t believe OJ committed the crime, at least, the evidence of which I was aware, didn’t convince me. I’m ripe for believing there’s an alternate suspect.

    I’ll read the links so that I’ll better understand where others are coming from when discussing the trial.

    The book addresses the holes in the evidence. Most telling is that OJ engaged a criminal defense lawyer for his son immediately and his lawyer refused to allow him to be interviewed by anyone.

  25. blouise17 says:

    Mike,

    I never bought the crazed drug cartel killer. Who was he after? Brown or Goldman?

  26. blouise - HELP says:

    Response bettykath failed to post … Will try again

  27. blouise says:

    2nd attempt

    “The book addresses the holes in the evidence. Most telling is that OJ engaged a criminal defense lawyer for his son immediately and his lawyer refused to allow him to be interviewed by anyone.” – bettykath

    Bingo!

    “Two respected Southern California attorneys are signing up to play a role in the O.J. Simpson murder case, though they will not join his already crowded defense team, sources close to the case said Friday.

    Edi M.O. Faal and Carl Jones have agreed to represent Simpson’s two adult children, Arnelle and Jason Simpson, the sources said. Police and prosecutors are seeking to interview the two children, and Simpson’s attorneys want them to have legal representation before they grant those interviews.

    If the children decline to be interviewed voluntarily, authorities have hinted that they might serve them with subpoenas and force them to testify before a grand jury, sources said.

    Jones is a Pasadena attorney and founder of a highly acclaimed private organization dedicated to providing indigent defendants quality legal representation at a lower cost to taxpayers. He declined to comment on his involvement in the Simpson case Friday. But sources in the defense camp said he has been asked to represent Jason Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s oldest son.” – LATimes 8/6/94

    Carl Jones never allowed an interview and Jason was never called to testify by the defense. Arnelle was. Jason supposedly had an airtight alibi which turned out to be not so according to Dear in his book.

    Jason was, at the time of the murders, on a 24 month probation for assault with a deadly weapon. The LAPD/DA never interviewed him and never collected any samples to be compared to the evidence found at Bundy and Rockingham.

  28. blouise - HELP says:

    2nd attempt also failed even after adding a couple words to combat the duplicate message

  29. Freed second attempt. One lives to be of service. :mrgreen:

  30. blouise says:

    Thanx

  31. Carterbo says:

    Blousie – It appears Judge Ito was overwhelmed with the backdrop of a Hollywood setting. I agree with the point you make about Rodney King. Add to it the fact that soon after the RK beatings aired publicly, you had the Korean liquor store owner killing Latasha Harlins in a city near to LAX, Westchester. The store owner received a fine and probation. I think this occurrence outweighed the RK beating and during the riots, almost all LA liquor stores, which a majority owned by Asians, were targeted and most burnt to the ground.

  32. blouise says:

    Carterbo,

    In prep for this GB post, I looked high and low for any credible person who had something unqualifiedly good to say about Judge Ito’s performance on the bench during the OJ trial. Every time I thought I had come across something, I’d find the comment contained a “but …”.

    Your description, “overwhelmed”, is far kinder than most but I like it. Yes, the cameras, the egos, the showmanship, and the drama seemed to totally engulf the man. Can you imagine someone like Scalia in Ito’s chair?

  33. blouise says:

    Carterbo,

    As regards the Fuhrman tapes and Ito, you might find this interesting and maybe, maybe, germane to your original point questioning Ito’s allowing the tapes in:

    ” … Apparently Fuhrman is an expert on loathsome behavior, because he reportedly told the scriptwriter how the cops use phony evidence to frame innocent people, bully minorities and otherwise amuse themselves.

    While blabbing this into a tape recorder, he made unflattering comments about Ito’s wife, a high-ranking L.A. cop who used to be Fuhrman’s boss.

    Details haven’t come out, but what he said about Ito’s wife was nasty enough to almost move the judge to tears.

    This really shouldn’t have anything to do with the ultimate question of whether O.J. chopped up two people. But it does.” – Mike Royko, Fuhrman Legal Jousting Needs Pointed Response From Lance, 8/23/95

    Keep in mind the screenwriter was developing a script on women serving in the LAPD ranks and Ito’s wife, when she retired in 2012, was the department’s highest ranking woman officer.

  34. blouise says:

    2002 is the year she retired … my Kindle thinks she should have waited till 2012

  35. Mike Spindell says:

    Blouise,

    As to why the grisliness of the murders for the Columbian Cartel it wasn’t personal, just business and instilling terror in those that crossed them. I see it as possible that some dealer got burned big time by Nicole not paying off money owed on a lot of coke. That’s only speculation of course.

    As for Ito, beyond any incompetence he had, was the fact that he was an LA person. Many out there dream of media stardom and here Lance was with the “crime of the century”, it made him preen. Visions of stardom and a political future no doubt beckoned him. After all this was California which had elected Reagan and other “celebrities to high office.

  36. swarthmoremom says:

    Good work, Blouise. Getting ready to go to to the California desert for vacation. Probably won’t be posting for a while.

  37. blouise says:

    SwM,

    Have a great trip

  38. blouise says:

    Mike,

    Not too sure about any real connection Brown had and the hit was so out in the open with neighbor’s window looking right down on the area that as a planned hit, kind of iffy. Now the restaurant where Goldman worked did have a reputation that was drug related.

    Also, would Brown have opened her door at that time of night for someone she didn’t know? And then there is the dog running around.

  39. bettykath says:

    I’ve been through the links but out of internet time. The wikipedia writeup sure makes it look like OJ did it, but ….. Will scan the book again tonight and will try to check in tomorrow with comments and questions.

  40. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    We have all the time in the world. The thread is forever in the ethers so take as long as you need. That’s part of the reason the editors granted us the space so we wouldn’t be disrupting someone else’s thread and lose our train of thought. We’re an independent study thread. 🙂

    The jury decided he didn’t do it, or rather that the case wasn’t proven, Wikipedia can’t overturn that fact.

    Dear’s book presents an alternative, a suspect the prosecution never considered and why they should have.

  41. Carterbo says:

    I searched a bit for the info but couldn’t find it…does the LAPD consider this double murder as a “cold-case?”

  42. bron98 says:

    blouise:

    great article. I also doubt he was the killer, I think he knows who did it though.

    People used to roll their eyes when I would say that, so I am glad there are others of like mind.

  43. blouise says:

    Bron,

    I experienced the exact same reaction from most of my peers. We are both recipients of the great eye roll.

  44. blouise says:

    Carterbo,

    I, too, tried to find that info with very little success. I doubt they are willing to consider anything that would require a new trial.

    (The LAPD did investigation Fuhrman who retired shortly after the trial. They claimed to have found nothing to backup the stories on the tapes.)

    However, there is this:

    “Cuba Gooding Jr. will star as O.J. Simpson in a new series on FX titled American Crime Story: The People v. O.J. Simpson according to multiple reports. The show comes from Ryan Murphy, the man behind the wildly popular (and unsettling) American Horror Story series. American Crime Story is based on a book [surrounding the trial] and will view the events through the eyes of the lawyers involved in the trial.”
    Cuba’s not the only celeb to sign up for the show. It has also been released that John Travolta will be joining the cast.” – Quinton Robinson, Classically, 1/9/15

    Now, after taking part in this discussion, you will be fully prepared to critique the new production.

    Stick with FFS and be on the cutting edge! 🙄

  45. Carterbo says:

    Nice blouise. Good job!

  46. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    In order to help save your internet time I have started to include as much of the pertinent quote within the post, cite it rather than posting the link.

  47. Anonymouly Yours says:

    Excellent piece Blouise…. I too have always thought OJ was covering for his son… But, what reasonable parent would not want to shield there child from harm…. Some go just a little over board….

  48. bettykath says:

    Did OJ do it? If so, was it an impromptu jealous rage? Or was it premeditated?

    If it was impromptu, where did OJ get the knife? How did he get rid of his bloody clothes and he bloody knife? How did he get home (in his underwear) without blood in his Bronco or all through his house? While there were charges of domestic abuse, there was no suggestion that weapons, other than OJ’s hands, were involved.

    If it was premeditated, he could have made plans on dealing with the blood and disposing of incriminating evidence, but why use a knife when he had guns? How did he know that Nicole was home? He was with Nicole, her parents, her sister, their children and a friend of his daughter at their daughter’s recital earlier in the evening. After the recital Nicole and the rest, minus OJ, went to dinner at the restaurant where Goldman worked. Would Nicole be home early enough that OJ could tend to murderous business and still make his flight to Chicago? Would she be home alone? Not likely, because at least his children would be there and the plan was for his daughter’s friend to stay over and the girls were unlikely to have gone to sleep early. The friend actually went home but OJ didn’t know this. Would he murder the mother of his children when they might be witnesses? As pointed out by blouise, the murder was committed in a 10′ x 10′ area near the sidewalk where people from the neighborhood actually walked, not far from the street, and in plain view from a neighbor’s window. Why did he not have an alibi?

    Why was Goldman there? Nicole’s mother dropped her prescription sunglasses as she was leaving the restaurant. She called to see if the glasses could be found. They were and Goldman offered to drop them off at Nicole’s. Was he also there for a romantic tryst? Maybe, maybe not.

  49. bettykath says:

    Did OJ act like he was guilty?

    Why the slow speed car chase? Why did the cops follow him for so long without trying to stop the car? If OJ were guilty, why did it take him so long to attempt to leave the area (if he were actually trying to leave)? Why the suggestion of suicide? Could it be that if OJ, as the primary/only suspect, were to commit suicide that the case would be closed?

    Why did he voluntarily give blood? Why did he offer to take a lie detector test? Dear says he took a private lie detector test but failed it miserably.

  50. bettykath says:

    If OJ planned the murder, why did he wear expensive loafers rather than running shoes?

    Why was the bloody glove the back of OJs Rockingham house and drops of blood the front driveway? He would have been seen by the waiting limo driver if he had been in the front driveway. If OJ were wearing or carrying the bloody glove, why was there so little blood in the Bronco?

  51. blouise says:

    Blood issues:

    Defense contends Nicole Brown Simpson’s Blood Was Planted On the Sock. The blood matching Nicole Brown Simpson that was found on the sock was a large, thick stain, slightly larger than the size of a quarter. It had a slightly crusty appearance and made the underlying material of the sock stiff and puckered. Surely this stain would have been noticed, the defense argued, had it been on the sock at the time the sock was collected. Yet on three separate occasions the sock was examined and the stain was not noticed.

    1st time – June 13, 1994, criminalist Dennis Fung collected the socks in O.J. Simpson’s bedroom. At that time he was conducting a search for blood in Simpson’s residence. He noted no blood on the socks.

    2nd time – June 22, 1994, the socks were examined at the LAPD laboratory by Michelle Kestler, a laboratory supervisor, and two experts for the defense, Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf. They noted no blood.

    3rd time – June 29, 1994, the socks were examined again as part of an inventory of evidence ordered by Judge Ito. The express purpose of the inventory was to determine what blood samples might be available to be split with the defense. No blood was observed on the sock. The laboratory notes say “blood search, none obvious.”

    Then on August 4, 1994, the blood stain was discovered. The defense argued that this sequence of events makes it obvious that the blood was planted on the sock sometime after June 29, 1994.
    …………………………..
    On the day the bodies were discovered, Lange noted an odd pattern of blood spots across Brown’s naked back. A match to that blood was never found.

    As Dear writes in his book, no samples were taken from Jason thus no comparisons made.

  52. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    Sorry, I just broke my own rule about not making you use up time checking links. The above link is to the memo from the LAPD public relations department (POI) in which they inform the requester for info that the Case is Closed. Dear refers to it in the book and I finally found it online.

  53. Carterbo says:

    I noticed the disclaimer from the link: “This content comes entirely from O.J. Is Innocent And I Can Prove It and is published with permission from author William Dear. Business Insider cannot confirm his claims.”

    This raises the question if the info is legit, IMO.

  54. blouise says:

    Carterbo,

    That’s an excellent observation and when I asked myself that question about the memo while reading the book, it was in the context of its setting in the book. If memory serves, the memo was supplied to Dear by the recipient and LAPD had no comment … which means they didn’t deny or confirm generating it.

    It is, however, undeniable that after the acquittal the LAPD didn’t look for another suspect. All the original players, except Ito, have left the scene. Fuhrman retired, Clarke never tried another case for the DA’s office, Darden went into private practice, Vannatter succumbed to cancer, Lange retired, and Garcetti changed professions becoming a photographer (his son is the mayor of L A now). I believe Ito is set to retire this month.

    It will be interesting to see to what degree the LAPD cooperates with the people preparing the FX series.

  55. bettykath says:

    I meant to post this yesterday.

    blouise, links are ok. Internet access is at the senior centers where my sister takes me. She teaches ceramics and drawing as a volunteer at several centers. I either join her class or use the internet. There is no internet at her home.
    ——————————
    Dear has provided a great deal of information. Independent verification is difficult. He does toot his own horn a bit, but it does help to understand his thought process as he goes about looking for evidence. There was also quite a bit of repetition but that helps to see where he was at the time. The questions changed a bit as he found answers that he didn’t expect or that confirmed one possibility over another.
    —————————-
    Mike said, 8. The blood evidence was so sparse as to lend itself to the possibility of it having been planted by the police.

    Considering that the blood on the socks contained the preservative that is added to vials, it lends itself to having been planted. 5 cc of blood was drawn from OJ, with his permission, but 1.5 cc was missing when it was turned in. The vial had the preservative added to it. Blood from Nicole and Goldman would have been taken at their autopsies with preservative added. If the police planted the blood on the socks, which seems likely since it contained the preservative, it places all the blood evidence in question, imo, especially all places where they claim OJ + Nicole + Goldman. It’s not clear to me if the other blood spots also contained the preservative or if they were even tested for it.

  56. bettykath says:

    Earlier I posted the problems of OJ doing the murder, whether it was spontaneous or premeditated. i doubt that the murder was premeditated as noted for OJ and for blouise’s reasons why it was unlikely to be a hit by a drug cartel. It was simply not a good place to commit murder due to timing, the openness of the site, and getting Nicole to open the door.

    Now, how about Jason? Jason is certainly someone to be considered. When he was very young is 18 month old sister drowned in the family pool. As the older brother, Jason would have expected, or would have been expected, to watch out for her. How much guilt did he carry for the loss of his sister? He was being treated as an epileptic and as someone who had unreasonable rages, especially when he was drinking.

    Jason didn’t have the natural athletic ability of his father, he wanted to be chef. He didn’t do well in school and was sent to a military-style school where it was hoped that the structure of the school would help him to focus. When he left there he followed his own desires to become a chef, but, apparently, with little help from his father. At the time of the murders, he was working as a sous chef, and, when the chef took time off, as the chef.

    According to Dear, Nicole had promised Jason that she would be dining that night at the restaurant where Jason would be the chef, not the sous chef. He was really interested in showing off his skill. He wasn’t a great athlete like his dad, but he was a good chef. Nicole didn’t show. It seems reasonable that Jason was angry that he was stood up and that he would want to know why. Nicole would open the door for him. If he showed his anger in asking for an accounting, how would she respond? If she responded in kind, essentially escalating Jason’s anger, how would he respond to that?

    Jason had recently been charged with assault when he went after someone with a chef’s knife. Did he carry a chef’s knife to Nicole’s? The forensics seemed to suggest there were two assailants due to the nature of the knife wounds that suggested two knives and there were two sets of footprints. But the wounds did not suggest a chef’s knife was used.

    What Dear found was that Jason’s alibi of working at that time on that night was not airtight. Although the time clock was working, Jason’s time was written in.

    An uncertain alibi and a history of violent rage makes Jason a good person of interest if you haven’t already made up your mind as to who was guilty, even if you have to plant evidence to make the case convincing.

    More to come.

  57. bettykath says:

    OT I have been grounded. My dog, Max, doesn’t like being left alone for extended periods, well, actually, he doesn’t like being left alone. When I’m gone for a very short period of time he deals with it and I get a happy welcome home. When I”m gone for an hour or so, he alternates between happy and telling me off with angry barks. Earlier in the week I was gone for several hours and he did a crying howl that had the neighbors concerned that he was injured. His injury was psychological. He spent a couple of days with my niece but he’s back with me and I have to stay home with him when it’s too hot or too cold to leave him in the car and just check in with him. No more pottery or drawing or ceramics with the classes. I have to “work” at home. I’ve adjusted and so has he.

  58. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    Not only was his alibi not airtight, it was suspicious. The timecards were all generated in the weeks before and after the murder by the time clock. Only the week that included the murder night was handwritten and no other employee’s timecard for that week was handwritten. Sunday nights were slow, so much so that a little over a month after the murders the restaurant stopped serving on Sundays. Only that handwritten timecard backs up the time Jason’s lawyer said he closed and left the restaurant.

    Since the LAPD/DA never interviewed Jason, his alibi was never tested.

    I wonder how many on the Dream Team knew about Jason.

  59. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    Sounds as if you adjusted. 😉

  60. Mike Spindell says:

    In all my intellectual involvement with this case I never really looked at Jason.Nowwith the info our “B” women have supplied I ‘d say he was a quite viable candidate.

  61. blouise says:

    Mike,

    From that viewpoint rethink the slow speed car chase and the words the Browns heard OJ say to Nicole at her funeral.

  62. bettykath says:

    What else did Dear come up with about Jason?
    Summation from pages 483-487 of Dear’s book:

    Jason was a problem child in that he did poorly in school, od’d on drugs and alcohol at 14, moved in with OJ and Nicole b/c his mother couldn’t control him, where OJ apparently physically abused him. (According to former LAPD officer Shipp, a former friend of OJ).

    He was diagnosed at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric for “intermittent Rage Disorder” accompanied by seizures. He took medication, Depakote, to control his rages but stopped taking it two months before the murders.

    He sometimes partied with Nicole and possibly stalked her. (According to Shipp)

    Continued abuse of drugs and alcohol: arrests and loss of license.

    Several suicide attempts.

    Several instances of rage: at a statue of his father, two girlfriends (one of them more than once), a former employer.
    ————
    I mention Shipp b/c he is the only source for that information.

  63. bettykath says:

    On the night of the murder:

    Was Jason on his medication or not? We don’t know.

    As stated previously, Nicole had made plans with Jason for dinner where Jason would be able to show off as chef. Nicole didn’t show and Jason allegedly was upset.

    Jason’s alibi was that he worked that night, according to the times written in on his time card, from 2:30 pm to 10:30 pm. Two witnesses, a waiter and his girlfriend, say Jason and his girlfriend left at 9:45, 45 minutes earlier. His girlfriend gave him an alibi of him taking her home and staying with her until after 11pm. At his civil deposition, Jason said he dropped her off then went home to watch movies. His girlfriend lived about 5 minutes from the restaurant. Jason was alone from about 9:50 on.

    A note about the restaurant: the LAPD claimed that Jason was cooking in front of 200 diners but there were less than 40 patrons the entire night, which is why Jason closed early. The restaurant stopped opening on Sundays shortly after due to lack of business.

  64. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    Cooking dinner for and being seen by over 200 people was a ruse. The restaurant in which Jason worked could seat less than 80 with only, as you pointed out, 40 actually dining there that night.

    The owner opened a second, larger restaurant later that could seat 200. Interestingly enough, Dear points out that at the time of the murders the owner only had that one, smaller restaurant where Jason worked and was experiencing financial difficulties. After the murders the owner’s financial difficulties cleared up to the extent that he was able to open the second, larger restaurant.

  65. bettykath says:

    Crime scene evidence and Jason, again, summarizing from Dear’s book.

    1. Many unidentified fingerprints never compared to Jason’s.
    2. There were two sets of shoe prints, only one of which was of the expensive shoes known be owned by OJ. One set of footprints was size 11 1/2. Jason was size 11 1/2, OJ size 12.
    3. Dark knit cap had African-American hair that did not match OJ. It also had blond hair.

    Dear purchased the contents of a storage unit that had been auctioned off from the man who had won the auction. The storage unit was rented by Jason. One of the items was a color photo, dated 3/24/93, of Jason wearing a dark cap sitting on a bed with a blond dog. Dear confirmed that the blond hair in cap found at the murder scene was that of a dog.

    4. Also in the storage shed was a knife that is consistent with the murder weapon. It was in a sheath that had Jason initials cut into it. The knife is called a boot knife and its purpose is to kill. Jason might have acquired such a knife since he had been trained in hand-to-hand combat at Army and Navy Academy.

    5. Jason’s diary, found in the storage shed, tells of a very troubled young man who was aware of his uncontrollable rages, his pathological lying, his Jeckell/Hyde personality, and other shortcomings.

    6. DNA found under Nicole’s fingernails was never identified.

    7. The blood that would have been on the killer: Jason had keys to the restaurant that he had closed earlier. He could have gone there to clean up. Jason had a jeep that he repeatedly left in the rain with the windows down. He would put the windows up after it had stopped raining. Why would he do that? After Dear’s report was published, Jason sold his jeep and moved to FL where OJ lived. Dear tracked down the new owner and bought the jeep. Did Dear have the jeep tested for blood? Surely the rain wouldn’t have removed all of it.

    8. Jason was never interviewed by LAPD. Only his deposition and his diary are his only words.

    Dear has made repeated attempts to get the judiciary of CA interested in pursuing the case. Their lack of action suggests that they are not interested in pursuing justice.

  66. bettykath says:

    blouise, An excellent example of a shoddy LAPD investigation would you say?

  67. blouise says:

    I would, indeed.

    But why? Why this determination that OJ be the only suspect? Did it never occur to any of them that the blood trail should have been a lot bloodier given the pools of it at the murder site.

    It pays to remember that Fuhrman was the first on the scene joined shortly thereafter by Philips. Lange and Vannatter, as part of the elite squad to which Phillips and Fuhrman were not assigned, arrived later that morning after NBS was identified as the condo resident and Fuhrman mentioned her ties to OJ. (At that point no one knew who Goldman was.) Fuhrman directed them to OJ’s residence which he remembered from a couple of domestic disturbance calls he’d rolled on in his patrol days.

    Philips is the one tasked with calling OJ at his hotel with the news of her death but after that he kind of disappears from the investigation. Fuhrman, however, remains and is very active in an investigation that is outside his usual assignment area. Was this something he pushed or was it Marcia Clarke’s idea?

  68. bettykath says:

    blouise, Good questions. Perhaps Fuhrman was blinded by thinking he had the one and only suspect in the person who was known to have done violence to Nicole in the past. Others may have just followed his lead. I see Fuhrman as an incompetent and dishonest cop. He was at the crime scene without any protective gear, i.e., he wasn’t concerned about protecting the evidence from contamination. He found blood, later, where others did not see it. His racism would blind him to many aspects of the case. After all, he was bringing down an icon, a Black icon.

    I think of Serino who investigated the murder of Trayvon. He came to believe that the killer was lying, that it wasn’t a case of self-defense, but he had trouble getting the evidence. He was overrun/overruled by others who wanted to protect the killer and/or white privilege, or were too lazy to truly question the killer’s story.

  69. bettykath says:

    Jason wasn’t as big a fish as OJ and, if he could frame OJ he would be the hero.

  70. bettykath says:

    gotta go. My sister is with Max and it’s been quite awhile. Will try to check back tomorrow.

  71. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    To tell you the truth, that’s what I started to strongly suspect as the trial moved forward. Had Fuhrman not been so woven into the investigation, Lange and Vannatter, who were much more experienced investigators, might have , repeat, might have, considered other suspects during the initial stages of the investigation. I also think Marcia Clarke, who was at Rockingham, was seeing stars in her crown … It was, after all … L.A.

    I wonder, if OJ had been convicted, was the real killer prepared to step forward? I’m going to bet he was. Why? Because it makes a good story. 😉

  72. bettykath says:

    blouise, I think that Jason may have stepped forward. Can you imagine the guilt he would have had? His diary is heartbreaking and scary. He, as a person, a human being, was in serious trouble and he knew it. I believe he called OJ after the murder and OJ took care of it. If OJ went to prison, I think it would have pushed Jason totally over the edge. It’s important to remember that Jason’s mental health was such that he probably would not have been convicted or, at least, would have spent his time in a mental hospital rather than a prison.

  73. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    If the majority of this theory is true, OJ Simpson is a very different kind of man than the one that exists in the public eye today. However, that is where I believe the civil trial verdict has a strange kind of relevance … guilty of obstruction of justice.

  74. bettykath says:

    I’m not so sure about obstruction of justice. Legally, yes, but I find it difficult to leave out morality and ethics. Clearly, he paid a huge price, in money and reputation, for protecting his son, assuming Dear is correct. Also, the aside chapter on the Las Vegas incident that ended with OJ being convicted of stealing his own possessions in a set up and going to jail.

    Who asked OJ anything except “where were you?” (alibi) and “are you guilty?” Of course they asked him other questions, but they just didn’t believe him. Did they (LAPD and prosecutors) consider that OJ might be innocent? Did they ask him if he knew who did it? Is it reasonable that he might not volunteer that he knew who did it, considering what Dear has found, that it was probably his son? Would you rat out one of your own children? OJ told them he didn’t do it. They just insisted that he did and even fabricated evidence to “prove” it.

    I tend to believe that Dear found enough and has connected enough dots that all that’s left is checking Jason’s fingerprints and DNA against the unidentified fingerprints and DNA found at the scene. (Question: there was unidentified DNA, right? Apparently there was some on Nicole that wasn’t collected. Was there DNA in the hair in knit cap? And can they recover DNA from the dog’s ashes?). There is probably blood still in the cracks and crevices of the jeep. I believe that justice requires this to be done.

  75. bettykath says:

    Hear the siren? Grammar police are on the prowl.

    “Also, the aside chapter on the Las Vegas incident that ended with OJ being convicted of stealing his own possessions in a set up and going to jail.” Where is the verb?

    The aside chapter on the Las Vegas incident that ended with OJ being convicted of stealing his own possessions in a set up and going to jail is another example of OJ paying a price for being found not guilty.

    Whew! That’s better.

  76. blouise says:

    I know it’s a reach on my part (obstruction) but I get hung up, assuming Dear’s theories are correct, on the fact that both of those adult males left the two bodies knowing there was a strong possibility that one or both of the sleeping children would awaken and find them. It doesn’t matter one iota to me that the children didn’t have to wade through all that blood to check on their almost headless mother, it matters that OJ was willing to take the chance of that happening to save his eldest son and the eldest was willing. Then, OJ, with some time to reflect on the matter as he changed clothes and rode in his limo to the airport, caught the flight anyway. It is that action, leaving those bodies for the two youngsters to find, leaving the front door and the front gate wide open knowing no adult was alive to protect those kids, that compromises any kind of moral or ethical pluses he might gain by saving Jason.

    I don’t know how much DNA degrades over time but there was DNA under Brown’s fingernails that remained unidentified and also drops of blood on her back that did not match any of the samples taken. The human hairs on the cap were identified as being consistent with an African American but were not specifically matched to OJ. It may be that they could now match the hairs to a different African American if they had a sample to compare.

    I would agree that Dear has enough evidence to strongly put forward a suspect the LAPD/DA should look at.

  77. bettykath says:

    Jason was undoubtedly in a panic and not thinking at all, except, “Dad, I need help”. But then he had enough presence of mind to follow instructions in getting away from the scene. (it’s not unusual for me to argue with myself). You’re right, though, OJ left his two younger children, and another child according to his knowledge (he didn’t know she had gone home), exposed to the horror of finding the body of their mother and Goldman.

    As I understand it not all hair has DNA, it is the root that is needed. Texture and other characteristics might identify it as A-A. Perhaps the root was attached to some of the hairs.

    I thought they didn’t collect the blood from Nicole’s back but I guess they collected it but were unable to match it. I guess that, the extra set of footprints, and the characteristics of the knife led some to believe that there were two assailants. Soooo, it would follow that they would ask OJ who else was there. Depending on how they asked the question, OJ might not have had to lie.
    ex: Q: “OJ, who helped you kill Nicole?” A:”I didn’t kill Nicole.” Not a lie.
    Q: OJ, do you know who killed Nicole? A: “yes” or a lie
    Q: “OJ, who killed Nicole?” A: “Jason” (assuming he did it) or a lie

    Most likely his attorneys prevented him from such an interview.

  78. blouise says:

    Okay … I argue with myself too. For instance: OJ receives a call after the other suspect has left the scene and thus goes to Bundy alone, sees the mess and is shocked to the core forgetting about any other occupants completely until he’s on the plane or in his hotel room. That’s a possibility but still doesn’t relieve him of his responsibility to his own little kids. Maybe he was counting on the dog alerting the neighbors rather than waking the children.

  79. blouise says:

    Do you remember the sequence of events at Rockingham? Specifically, when was the glove found (supposedly found) in relation to Kato K’s telling them about the bumps on his wall (air conditioner).What was the timing between that conversation with police and the discovery of the glove?

  80. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    I’m leaving tomorrow morning for two – three weeks vacation and am not certain if I’ll have internet service. I will be back next month and pick up our discussion again. Just wanted to let you know so you wouldn’t think anything is wrong.

  81. bettykath says:

    blouise, thanks for the message. Yesterday afternoon I was going out for internet service and took a nap instead. 😦 I need to find more information about what was actually presented at the trial. Maybe I’ll find it before you get back. It’s still cold up north so I’m sticking with the south. It isn’t all that cozy but it’s much warmer than the teens. Enjoy your vacation. Hope it’s warm, sunny, and totally stress free. 🙂

  82. Two sides to a story says:

    I was home from a govt job with a new baby during the OJ trial and felt the jury got it right. I also feel that OJ was taking an ordinary precaution to safeguard his son, and I don’t think Jason had anything to do with it either. I think perhaps serial killer Glen Rogers is the real culprit. http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/06/oj-simpson-serial-killer-claims-killed-nicole-brown-simpson-bombshell-prison-letter/

  83. blouise says:

    Two sides to a story,

    My internet time is sketchy but I will certainly check out this Glen Rogers. Off the top of my head I wonder how he got her to open the door and walk down or at least approach the steps? That may be a dumb question since I haven’t checked out the links yet. Stay tuned and I will be back next month. Maybe bettykath is familiar with the serial killer theory. I think I need to post a diagram of the kill zone

  84. blouise says:

    Note the front door on the far left of the diagram. Then two steps down to the walkway bordered on each side by planters then three steps down to short walkway and front gate. The area where Goldman died was bordered by a fence and there was also a fairly large tree there that his body was leaning against. Nicole’s body is on the bottom of the three steps and on the short walkway and easily seen from the public sidewalk through the open gate.

  85. gbk says:

    bettykath,

    You might find this sight helpful for trial information:

    http://simpson.walraven.org/

    It has all the transcripts, juror interviews, motions and court orders, evidence presented, etc.

  86. gbk says:

    sight = site

  87. bettykath says:

    gbk, thanks!

  88. bettykath says:

    TwoSides, Rogers claims, from death row, that he did it. Maybe. There are fingerprints and DNA that haven’t been identified. Testing Jason and Rogers would be a good start to eliminating one of them.

    What Dear found convinced me that Jason is a serious person of interest. He obtained many things from a storage unit that belonged to Jason. There was a weapon that matches the murder weapon. There were many pictures, including one of Jason, on a bed with his blond dog, wearing a knit cap like that found at the scene. The knit cap found at the scene had A-A hairs and blond dog hairs. Jason is very fair with light brown hair, not to be mistaken for A-A hair. Jason’s alibi isn’t. Jason also has a diagnosis of a rage disorder and was/is taking medication for it but he stopped taking it shortly before the murders. Nicole stood him up the evening of the murders and it seems reasonable that he would go to her after work looking for an explanation. It’s also reasonable that Nicole just told him to forget it that she where she chooses. Dear also has Jason’s jeep that Jason repeatedly allowed to be rained in on. Did the rain wash away all of the blood? Test need to be made.

    Does Rogers have the murder weapon? Can he explain the cap with A-A and dog hair? What about the leather gloves? He could have taken the cross from Nicole’s when he was working on the house, if he was working on the house. And, as Blouise said, how did he get Nicole to open the door and move so far out of the house? I think the fingerprint test would eliminate him.

    OJ got lawyers for his two oldest children immediately, a good move. His sister testified, which means she was probably deposed by the prosecutors. Only Jason was not allowed to be interviewed by anyone, or to testify.

  89. gbk says:

    No problem.

    The “evidence presented” section of the site seems sparse, but the trial transcripts seem fairly complete.

  90. bettykath says:

    Lots of reading for me. Lots of tabs to open so I can read while off-line.

  91. will says:

    To say that both jury’s got it right is asinine. O.J. did this WITHOUT A DOUBT. To say he just stumbled upon his wife and her boyfriend then walked all through their blood, let’s not forget O.J. cuts himself and starts bleeding all throughout the crime scene, then bends down and scoops up some of Ron’s blood, then gets some of Nicole’s blood to take back and smear all throughout his bronco, and he has to do this not long after the murders because the blood is still wet, is not only laughable, it’s incredibly ignorant to think that way. Come on people use common sense. We now know what dna evidence is and how crucial it is to telling the story of how a crime took place. But to say his son had anything to do with this, is to ignore almost all of the evidence. He had no motive. The person who did this had an enormous amount of rage for these two, especially Nicole. You need to go back and review the evidence.

Comments are closed.