Full Case Discussion: If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit

[psychoticstate]

I know there are some posters here who believe that the LAPD planted evidence in this case.  I'm wondering if there is anyone here who believes that Simpson didn't do it (the question of framing or not aside.)  If you do think he didn't do it, why?  And how do you reconcile that with "If I Did It"?

[FozzyBear]

I know there are some posters here who believe that the LAPD planted evidence in this case. I'm wondering if there is anyone here who believes that Simpson didn't do it (the question of framing or not aside.) If you do think he didn't do it, why? And how do you reconcile that with "If I Did It"?

I pretty much think he did it, but I guess have a small amount of doubt along the lines of he was involved, but we don't know the whole story.

As for the book. The book, the book, the book. As I said, I'm like 99.5 he did it, but the book... I almost get to the point of wondering if it is crazier to write that if you're guilty or if you're innocent. I never read it (because gross) so I don't know if there is new information or if he just uses the prosecutions narrative. If he just lays out what was presented at court I guess you could argue that he was crazy and desperate enough for money to know it would sell and just not give a &$&@.

[psychoticstate]

I pretty much think he did it, but I guess have a small amount of doubt along the lines of he was involved, but we don't know the whole story.

As for the book. The book, the book, the book. As I said, I'm like 99.5 he did it, but the book... I almost get to the point of wondering if it is crazier to write that if you're guilty or if you're innocent. I never read it (because gross) so I don't know if there is new information or if he just uses the prosecutions narrative. If he just lays out what was presented at court I guess you could argue that he was crazy and desperate enough for money to know it would sell and just not give a &$&@.

 

fozzy, I bought the book because the money went to the Goldman family and read it.  I've also listened to the audio version (much creepier.)  He doesn't just lay out the prosecution's case.  He actually writes of the conversation that went down between him and Ron and how Ron pissed him off not only be showing up, but attempting to diffuse the situation with Nicole and then taking a karate stance in order to ward off Simpson.  He also tells of changing out of his clothes there by Nicole's condo (because they had blood on them) and in doing so had to reach into his pulled inside out pants for his keys.  Doing that caused him to pull loose change out of the pocket, which scattered on the sidewalk.  Detectives did find loose coins on the walkway that led to the alley where Simpson would have parked his Bronco (and where he said he did in the book) and where the blood drops led.   Of course Simpson also says there was a second man along that night named "Charlie."  Total work of fiction as I think Charlie was a part of Simpson himself (Charlie was the one supposedly saying don't do this, don't do it, etc.) 

 

In my mind an innocent person would NEVER write such a thing.  And would certainly not have very specific details like he did.

 

He knew he couldn't be charged again because of double jeopardy and I think it was one way to make money and another way for the narcissistic fuckwit to tell people what he did.  

[deerstalker]

fozzy, I bought the book because the money went to the Goldman family and read it.  I've also listened to the audio version (much creepier.)  He doesn't just lay out the prosecution's case.  He actually writes of the conversation that went down between him and Ron and how Ron pissed him off not only be showing up, but attempting to diffuse the situation with Nicole and then taking a karate stance in order to ward off Simpson.  He also tells of changing out of his clothes there by Nicole's condo (because they had blood on them) and in doing so had to reach into his pulled inside out pants for his keys.  Doing that caused him to pull loose change out of the pocket, which scattered on the sidewalk.  Detectives did find loose coins on the walkway that led to the alley where Simpson would have parked his Bronco (and where he said he did in the book) and where the blood drops led.   Of course Simpson also says there was a second man along that night named "Charlie."  Total work of fiction as I think Charlie was a part of Simpson himself (Charlie was the one supposedly saying don't do this, don't do it, etc.) 

 

In my mind an innocent person would NEVER write such a thing.  And would certainly not have very specific details like he did.

 

He knew he couldn't be charged again because of double jeopardy and I think it was one way to make money and another way for the narcissistic fuckwit to tell people what he did.  

 

 

I thought the prosecution's contention was that Nicole was already unconscious/dead by the time Ron happened upon the scene and was killed?  Which makes sense, unless there was more than one assailant, seeing a person getting chopped up/stabbed in front of you tends to make the other people on the scene flee/scream very loudly.  So I don't know if I could buy that particular scene that OJ painted...unless of course, he was actually correct, and there was more than one assailant.

[psychoticstate]

I thought the prosecution's contention was that Nicole was already unconscious/dead by the time Ron happened upon the scene and was killed?  Which makes sense, unless there was more than one assailant, seeing a person getting chopped up/stabbed in front of you tends to make the other people on the scene flee/scream very loudly.  So I don't know if I could buy that particular scene that OJ painted...unless of course, he was actually correct, and there was more than one assailant.

 

I'm going off memory but I believe per "If I Did It" Nicole was unconscious when Ron walked up and he attempted to aid her.  Diffusing the situation was getting Simpson to calm down and leave. 

[BooBear]

I know there are some posters here who believe that the LAPD planted evidence in this case.  I'm wondering if there is anyone here who believes that Simpson didn't do it (the question of framing or not aside.)  If you do think he didn't do it, why?  And how do you reconcile that with "If I Did It"?

 

Of course I think he was involved but I do have some doubt as to if he did it... did it alone, or what. I have two lingering issues. (1) why after being acquitted and then going to jail for robbery has he never seemingly said to anyone he did it. We think he did and act accordingly so what does he have to lose now by confessing? and (2) I wonder if someone else was involved (maybe his son).   I always thought it was weird the way Jason came flying out of the house after the Bronco chase... not like someone who cared about his dad dying but more like someone who was like "you better keep your mouth shut man." Also, I never hear anything that satisfied the "why now" question. I mean it had been two years.

 

I also have some doubts about the intent. Diminished capacity. As more and more football players are found to have CTE... I feel like OJ will be found to have it, perhaps a mild case, upon autopsy.

[deerstalker]

I'm going off memory but I believe per "If I Did It" Nicole was unconscious when Ron walked up and he attempted to aid her.  Diffusing the situation was getting Simpson to calm down and leave. 

 

I never read If I Did It, so thanks for that information. You are truly doing the lord’s work on that one. :)  I had another thought as I was thinking about the murder scenario put forth by the prosecution.  The prosecution contended that OJ wore the infamous gloves during the murders, and sustained the cut on his finger while struggling with Goldman that night, but I’m assuming that no corresponding cut/tear on the glove itself was ever discovered (that glove would have been the bloody glove that Fuhrman found that night), otherwise they would have been shouting about that from the rafters.  So how did they attempt to reconcile that?

[RemoteControlFreak]

Of course I think he was involved but I do have some doubt as to if he did it... did it alone, or what. I have two lingering issues. (1) why after being acquitted and then going to jail for robbery has he never seemingly said to anyone he did it. We think he did and act accordingly so what does he have to lose now by confessing? and (2) I wonder if someone else was involved (maybe his son).   I always thought it was weird the way Jason came flying out of the house after the Bronco chase... not like someone who cared about his dad dying but more like someone who was like "you better keep your mouth shut man." Also, I never hear anything that satisfied the "why now" question. I mean it had been two years.

 

I also have some doubts about the intent. Diminished capacity. As more and more football players are found to have CTE... I feel like OJ will be found to have it, perhaps a mild case, upon autopsy.

 

Simpson is eligible for parole next year.  It's not like he's locked up for life.  He also never admitted to doing anything wrong in the situation for which he is now imprisoned.  He expects to get our of prison in 2017 and resume his carefree life playing golf and trying to hobnob with whatever hangers-on will still have him and continuing to try to restore his image.  So he has everything to lose by confessing.

 

Simpson's lawyer, or maybe it was just a friend, was making the media rounds at the time that American Crime Story premiered arguing that Simpson had CTE and implying that that's an excuse for whatever bad things he's ever done in his entire life.  He may or may have CTE now. He probably didn't have it in 1994 when he was doing his own stunts in movies and recording fitness videos. Not every football player gets CTE and it's slimy to jump on the CTE bandwagon as a way of excusing Simpson's atrocious life choices.  

 

As for Jason, there is zero evidence that he was involved at all.  He had been watching live TV reporting that his father was in a car with a gun to his head. It makes perfect sense that when OJ got near his home, Jason would run out to try to stop him from shooting himself.  I don't know where you're getting the idea that he was telling OJ to keep his mouth shut.  That's such a very specific analysis.  I guess with conspiracy theories, the theory comes first and then it's necessary to make up pieces that fit the story.  So if you want to believe that Jason killed Nicole with no motive and leaving no evidence, then imagining that he was trying to tell his father not to talk makes sense.

Edited April 9, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[psychoticstate]

Of course I think he was involved but I do have some doubt as to if he did it... did it alone, or what. I have two lingering issues. (1) why after being acquitted and then going to jail for robbery has he never seemingly said to anyone he did it. We think he did and act accordingly so what does he have to lose now by confessing? and (2) I wonder if someone else was involved (maybe his son).   I always thought it was weird the way Jason came flying out of the house after the Bronco chase... not like someone who cared about his dad dying but more like someone who was like "you better keep your mouth shut man." Also, I never hear anything that satisfied the "why now" question. I mean it had been two years.

 

I also have some doubts about the intent. Diminished capacity. As more and more football players are found to have CTE... I feel like OJ will be found to have it, perhaps a mild case, upon autopsy.

 

The problem with a second offender is that no one else's DNA was found.  And one weapon was used.  Did Simpson use it and then pass it off to a second person? 

 

As far as why Simpson wouldn't confess, look at his refusal to come clean before the civil trial.  Fred Goldman offered to drop the civil case if Simpson would just admit he'd done it.  Simpson would have had no legal repercussions whatsoever and yet he wouldn't do it.   

 

Also, read my post above.  My friend is friends with a studio exec who was told directly by Simpson that he did it, he got away with it and "the bitch deserved it." 

 

And I certainly take "If I Did It' as a narcissistic form of confession.  An innocent person would never do such a thing.  "If" my butt.  If he was innocent, would he want his children to read that?   

 

Personally I find the diminished capacity a cop out.  Simpson had been violent (and enabled) for years.  He had threatened Nicole for years.  I don't think he decided to kill her after years of abuse because of a head injury or CTE.  To my knowledge, he'd never demonstrated any symptoms of CTE - - no headaches, no memory issues, etc..  In fact, he was in excellent shape at the time of the murders.

I never read If I Did It, so thanks for that information. You are truly doing the lord’s work on that one. :)  I had another thought as I was thinking about the murder scenario put forth by the prosecution.  The prosecution contended that OJ wore the infamous gloves during the murders, and sustained the cut on his finger while struggling with Goldman that night, but I’m assuming that no corresponding cut/tear on the glove itself was ever discovered (that glove would have been the bloody glove that Fuhrman found that night), otherwise they would have been shouting about that from the rafters.  So how did they attempt to reconcile that?

 

Ha ha ha!  Thank you - - I'll remind myself of doing the Lord's work when I read over the case.  The book was interesting enough but I will say that the audiobook narrator was fantastic and made it so, sooooo disturbing to listen to. 

 

With regard to the gloves, my belief is that Ron pulled the glove off during their struggle.  It would make sense that he would have been flailing and doing whatever he could to avoid the knife and stay alive.  If he pulled the glove off - - after Simpson had already at least initially attacked Nicole and got her blood on it - - then it wouldn't have any corresponding cut or tear to the cut or cuts on Simpson's finger (which cut or cuts would have happened after his hand was bare and he was frantically slashing at Ron.) 

[Finnegan]

I read If I Did It too, I can't remember how I got my copy. My issue with the confession chapter is that there are discrepancies with the physical crime scene evidence. If he shed his bloody clothes at Bundy, why was there no imprint of them at the scene? How did he get back to the Bronco to get the bag to put the clothes and weapon in without getting more blood or fingerprints in the vehicle? And OJ makes the murder sound spontaneous, while there is evidence that he'd been planning it for some time. There's no way Charlie exists, though I like the theory that it's a part of OJ's psyche.

[DangerousMinds]

Tha ks for the details of the book from those of you who had the courage to read it. I downloaded it free from a torrent site and immediately felt dirty and deleted it from my computer.

[Spartan Girl]

Does anyone think OJ could get parole next year? I hope not. Some people think he only got busted for stealing his memorabilia because they couldn't get him for murder, but that shouldn't be an issue. He did the crime, he should do the time. And it isn't like he's got much of a life waiting for him on the other side, at this point. Especially after this show.

[RemoteControlFreak]

Does anyone think OJ could get parole next year? I hope not. Some people think he only got busted for stealing his memorabilia because they couldn't get him for murder, but that shouldn't be an issue. He did the crime, he should do the time. And it isn't like he's got much of a life waiting for him on the other side, at this point. Especially after this show.

Legal experts say there is a good chance that he'll be granted parole next year.  He may have a better life than we think. After all, there are still people who believe he didn't kill Nicole and Ron. He has friends and defenders.

[Crs97]

I accept that he did it, but the contradicting evidence does throw me. The argument is made there could be no conspiracy because the police didn't know that night whether OJ had an alibi, but then defenders talk about blood stains that didn't show up until weeks later. I probably need to read one of the books to know what evidence was found when.

[DangerousMinds]

Legal experts say there is a good chance that he'll be granted parole next year.  He may have a better life than we think. After all, there are still people who believe he didn't kill Nicole and Ron. He has friends and defenders.

Those charges aren't related to his current imprisonment. AND I am quite sure at the judge in his current case does not think he was innocent of the murders.

[ketose]

Simpson is eligible for parole next year.  It's not like he's locked up for life.  He also never admitted to doing anything wrong in the situation for which he is now imprisoned.  He expects to get our of prison in 2017 and resume his carefree life playing golf and trying to hobnob with whatever hangers-on will still have him and continuing to try to restore his image.  So he has everything to lose by confessing.

 

Simpson's lawyer, or maybe it was just a friend, was making the media rounds at the time that American Crime Story premiered arguing that Simpson had CTE and implying that that's an excuse for whatever bad things he's ever done in his entire life.  He may or may have CTE now. He probably didn't have it in 1994 when he was doing his own stunts in movies and recording fitness videos. Not every football player gets CTE and it's slimy to jump on the CTE bandwagon as a way of excusing Simpson's atrocious life choices.  

 

As for Jason, there is zero evidence that he was involved at all.  He had been watching live TV reporting that his father was in a car with a gun to his head. It makes perfect sense that when OJ got near his home, Jason would run out to try to stop him from shooting himself.  I don't know where you're getting the idea that he was telling OJ to keep his mouth shut.  That's such a very specific analysis.  I guess with conspiracy theories, the theory comes first and then it's necessary to make up pieces that fit the story.  So if you want to believe that Jason killed Nicole with no motive and leaving no evidence, then imagining that he was trying to tell his father not to talk makes sense.

There's more speculation than knowledge about CTE and what it does. I think it's more likely that the men who play football were rewarded for their anger issues and never had the same boundaries other adults have.

 

I was thinking about how OJ killed Nicole clean and quick, but stabbed the hell out of Ron. I wonder if he really wanted to kill Ron but reluctantly had to kill Nicole because she was a witness. OJ is very possessive about what he deems his property. He threatened people at gun point to get his old sports memorabilia back.

[starri]

I was thinking about how OJ killed Nicole clean and quick, but stabbed the hell out of Ron. I wonder if he really wanted to kill Ron but reluctantly had to kill Nicole because she was a witness. OJ is very possessive about what he deems his property. He threatened people at gun point to get his old sports memorabilia back.

More likely it was because he surprised Nicole.  She would have been dead before she could have known what was happening.  He didn't have surprise with Ron, and Ron fought.

[RemoteControlFreak]

Those charges aren't related to his current imprisonment. AND I am quite sure at the judge in his current case does not think he was innocent of the murders.

You don't understand. I didn't say that he would be paroled because of anything related to the murder case.  He'll likely be paroled because first-time offenders for armed robbery with no other criminal record who behave well in prison and are 70 years old are often paroled at the first opportunity for parole.  

More likely it was because he surprised Nicole.  She would have been dead before she could have known what was happening.  He didn't have surprise with Ron, and Ron fought.

Exactly. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[Umbelina]

 O.J. Simpson was convicted of:

    Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit a Crime
    Count 2: Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping
    Count 3: Conspiracy to Commit Robbery
    Count 4: Burglary while in Possession of a Deadly Weapon
    Count 5: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon (for Bruce Fromong)
    Count 6: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon (for Alfred Beardsley)
    Count 7: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (for Bruce Fromong)
    Count 8: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (for Alfred Beardsley)
    Count 9: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (for Bruce Fromong)
    Count 10: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (for Alfred Beardsley)
    Count 11: Coercion with a Deadly Weapon (for Bruce Fromong as an alternative to Count 5)
    Count 12: Coercion with a Deadly Weapon (for Alfred Beardsley as an alternative to Count 6)

[RemoteControlFreak]

 O.J. Simpson was convicted of:

    Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit a Crime

    Count 2: Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping

    Count 3: Conspiracy to Commit Robbery

    Count 4: Burglary while in Possession of a Deadly Weapon

    Count 5: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon (for Bruce Fromong)

    Count 6: 1st Degree Kidnapping with Use of a Deadly Weapon (for Alfred Beardsley)

    Count 7: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (for Bruce Fromong)

    Count 8: Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (for Alfred Beardsley)

    Count 9: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (for Bruce Fromong)

    Count 10: Assault with a Deadly Weapon (for Alfred Beardsley)

    Count 11: Coercion with a Deadly Weapon (for Bruce Fromong as an alternative to Count 5)

    Count 12: Coercion with a Deadly Weapon (for Alfred Beardsley as an alternative to Count 6)

True.

 

But note that he's already been paroled on five of those counts. I believe they are Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.   He's still in prison only for the other charges.  

Edited April 10, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[VanillaBeanne]

You don't understand. I didn't say that he would be paroled because of anything related to the murder case. He'll likely be paroled because first-time offenders for armed robbery with no other criminal record who behave well in prison and are 70 years old are often paroled at the first opportunity for parole.

Exactly.

If OJ was Orenthal the bus driver who committed kidnapping and armed robbery, I would agree that parole was likely for those reasons, and for the reason that nine years for a crime where no one was physically harmed seems sufficient. But the parole board has wide discretion. I also think they're human and I wouldn't be surprised if they rejected him for parole because they might find it hard to let The Butcher of Brentwood free. At least for the Goldmans sake. Edited April 10, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[psychoticstate]

I read If I Did It too, I can't remember how I got my copy. My issue with the confession chapter is that there are discrepancies with the physical crime scene evidence. If he shed his bloody clothes at Bundy, why was there no imprint of them at the scene? How did he get back to the Bronco to get the bag to put the clothes and weapon in without getting more blood or fingerprints in the vehicle? And OJ makes the murder sound spontaneous, while there is evidence that he'd been planning it for some time. There's no way Charlie exists, though I like the theory that it's a part of OJ's psyche.

I think there was a lot of truth in "If I Did It" but I also take some of what's written with a grain of salt.  Like most narcissists and/or pathological liars, there is truth mixed in with the lies. 

 

I agree that Nicole's murder was planned out - - we know Simpson purchased the disguise at the end of May.  I believe the June 12 date was chosen after Paula Barbieri dumped him, Nicole ignored him at the recital (while looking good) and he was not invited to the family dinner.  But it doesn't benefit Simpson to claim it was premeditated.  It also doesn't fit in line with his story about how Nicole was the problem, she was nothing but issues, she had cheated on him repeatedly, how she was begging for him to take her back and how he was so darn happy without Nicole and with Paula.

 

I think Ron's murder was more of a crime of passion, spontaneous.  Simpson didn't intend to kill him - - or anyone other than Nicole - - that night.     

 

Tha ks for the details of the book from those of you who had the courage to read it. I downloaded it free from a torrent site and immediately felt dirty and deleted it from my computer.

 

Don't feel badly.  I had no intention of purchasing the book when and if Simpson was going to benefit from it.  Once I heard the Goldmans had been awarded rights to it, I bought it if only to help them collect their judgment. 

Does anyone think OJ could get parole next year? I hope not. Some people think he only got busted for stealing his memorabilia because they couldn't get him for murder, but that shouldn't be an issue. He did the crime, he should do the time. And it isn't like he's got much of a life waiting for him on the other side, at this point. Especially after this show.

 

I think he will dependent on his behavior in prison.  If he's been a model prisoner, he'll likely get parole. 

 

I'm not sure how it works but his NFL pension was untouchable as far as the Goldman/Brown judgment went.  It was $25K a month.  I wonder if that pension was halted while he has been incarcerated or if it's been put in an account somewhere for him.  If so, he'll have a tidy nest egg waiting for him (which is painfully unfair.)

[ketose]

If OJ was Orenthal the bus driver who committed kidnapping and armed robbery, I would agree that parole was likely for those reasons, and for the reason that nine years for a crime where no one was physically harmed seems sufficient. But the parole board has wide discretion. I also think they're human and I wouldn't be surprised if they rejected him for parole because they might find it hard to let The Butcher of Brentwood free. At least for the Goldmans sake.

Besides, parole boards don't like criminals who won't admit guilt.

[RemoteControlFreak]

I think Ron's murder was more of a crime of passion, spontaneous.  Simpson didn't intend to kill him - - or anyone other than Nicole - - that night.     

Obviously he had to kill Ron because he was a witness to Nicole's murder.   This wasn't about passion. He had no choice.

Besides, parole boards don't like criminals who won't admit guilt.

Well they've already paroled him on the some of the more serious counts of his conviction.  So they liked him well enough.  I don't think the parole board can even consider the double murder or the other crimes he's been charged with over the years because he's gotten off in all the cases.  I could be wrong about this.  They can consider his flight during the Bronco chase and this was probably the reason he was held in solitary confinement without bail when arrested in Las Vegas. 

I think he will dependent on his behavior in prison.  If he's been a model prisoner, he'll likely get parole. 

This was the claim, which was not disputed, when he appeared before the parole board in 2013 and successfully earned parole on five of the counts.

[ketose]

I just saw that YouTube has "The OJ Simpson Story" from 1995. I was going to watch, but the director was credited as Alan Smithee. The real director took his name off and never directed again. Someone narrated "If I Did It" to scenes from it.

[Mittengirl]

Given OJ's age, there might also be financial reasons for parolling him. The state may want to get rid of him before he starts needing expensive medical care. I have read about older inmates being paroled for "humanitarian" reasons when they are ill, but it also means that the prison system is not on the hook for their large health care costs.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Mittengirl

[whiporee]

I think IF I DID IT was a money grab. He knew there was no money in NO, I REALLY REALLY DIDN"T DO IT. I think you could make the case that since the world had convicted him anyway, why not make some money off their assumptions?

 

I think he probably did it, but i'm not and never have been certain. It was a weird premeditation, and it the lack of blood in the Bronco makes it hard to think of it as a crime of passion. So I think it possible someone else did it, but I doubt it. Also, I've never heard who Nicole was meeting at the house with all the candles lit -- was there a boyfriend that has never been mentioned? I don't know, but it seemed the house was being set up for romance, and I've never heard anything about that. Or maybe she liked candlelit baths -- I know a lot of people do. 

 

I think LAPD planted the drop of blood on the sock, the blood on the gate and probably the drops of blood at Rockingham. I think they went to Rockingham thinking he was a suspect, so they violated the Fourth Amendment by searching a suspect's house without a warrant. I'm more afraid of the State abusing its power than I am of any particular criminal, so I've always been okay with the acquittal, and I think had he been convicted, it would have been reversed. 

 

I think the size of the Goldman reward was payback for the acquittal. I think his Nevada conviction and the length of his sentence was payback for the acquittal. I think he'll be denied parol because of the acquittal. 

 

The CTE is an interesting idea. There have been plenty of circumstances of football players going crazy and doing crazy-ass things, and those are linked to CTE in the minds of some people (I'm not sure where I come down on it). And he was also in an era of rampant steroid use, and both the long term and (supposing he was still using) short term effects of those could have been a factor. Also, cocaine never helps. So there could have been a lot of factors that went into his derangement. 

 

I'm looking forward to the ESPN thing, which is supposed to be amazing. One of my favorite commentators has seen large parts of it, and he said FX was luck PvOJS went first, because if it came after the ESPN one, it would have been laughed off the air. 

 

So yeah, he probably did it, though I'm a lot more open to other possibilities than most. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by whiporee

[Jel]

That's why Bailey goaded him, with the hostile attitude and the aggressive, fast questions and the inflammatory word.  Very calculated to push Fuhrman into a man-fight rather than think.

This triggered a memory for me, Umbelina.  

 

During the trial, I took part in an AOL (or Compuserve, forget which) chat (hey, that's how we did it back then) with a bunch of trial nerds like me and featuring OJ trial pundits, Greta Van Susteren and Roger Cossak.  I asked what they thought of Bailey's questioning of MF. Roger Cossack was not impressed and IIRC essentially said he was washed up and made a fool of himself.  

 

I thought, nahh, old Lee Bailey has something up his sleeve there I am sure, and sure enough, he did.

 

I also asked them where they came down on it. Greta said they were officially not allowed to say, but that Roger had been a prosecutor and she a defense attorney and if I wanted I could draw my own inferences based on that.  Thought that was pretty interesting, too.

[Eolivet]

One of my favorite commentators has seen large parts of it, and he said FX was luck PvOJS went first, because if it came after the ESPN one, it would have been laughed off the air.

 

How are the two even comparable? One is a documentary -- one is a drama series. This show was never meant to be a reenactment, and for the commentator to judge it against a documentary seems bizarre to me. Presumably, ESPN isn't having actors play the roles.

 

(Then again, ESPN is not above stretching the truth to suit their purposes -- cough, Chris Mortensen and "11 out of 12 footballs").

[RemoteControlFreak]

I think IF I DID IT was a money grab. He knew there was no money in NO, I REALLY REALLY DIDN"T DO IT. I think you could make the case that since the world had convicted him anyway, why not make some money off their assumptions?

 

I think he probably did it, but i'm not and never have been certain. It was a weird premeditation, and it the lack of blood in the Bronco makes it hard to think of it as a crime of passion. So I think it possible someone else did it, but I doubt it. Also, I've never heard who Nicole was meeting at the house with all the candles lit -- was there a boyfriend that has never been mentioned? I don't know, but it seemed the house was being set up for romance, and I've never heard anything about that. Or maybe she liked candlelit baths -- I know a lot of people do. 

 

I think LAPD planted the drop of blood on the sock, the blood on the gate and probably the drops of blood at Rockingham. I think they went to Rockingham thinking he was a suspect, so they violated the Fourth Amendment by searching a suspect's house without a warrant. I'm more afraid of the State abusing its power than I am of any particular criminal, so I've always been okay with the acquittal, and I think had he been convicted, it would have been reversed. 

How and when did they plant the blood?  And where did they get the blood that they used for the planting?

[Jel]

I think IF I DID IT was a money grab. He knew there was no money in NO, I REALLY REALLY DIDN"T DO IT. I think you could make the case that since the world had convicted him anyway, why not make some money off their assumptions?

 

I think he probably did it, but i'm not and never have been certain. It was a weird premeditation, and it the lack of blood in the Bronco makes it hard to think of it as a crime of passion. So I think it possible someone else did it, but I doubt it. Also, I've never heard who Nicole was meeting at the house with all the candles lit -- was there a boyfriend that has never been mentioned? I don't know, but it seemed the house was being set up for romance, and I've never heard anything about that. Or maybe she liked candlelit baths -- I know a lot of people do. 

 

I think LAPD planted the drop of blood on the sock, the blood on the gate and probably the drops of blood at Rockingham. I think they went to Rockingham thinking he was a suspect, so they violated the Fourth Amendment by searching a suspect's house without a warrant. I'm more afraid of the State abusing its power than I am of any particular criminal, so I've always been okay with the acquittal, and I think had he been convicted, it would have been reversed. 

 

I think the size of the Goldman reward was payback for the acquittal. I think his Nevada conviction and the length of his sentence was payback for the acquittal. I think he'll be denied parol because of the acquittal. 

 

The CTE is an interesting idea. There have been plenty of circumstances of football players going crazy and doing crazy-ass things, and those are linked to CTE in the minds of some people (I'm not sure where I come down on it). And he was also in an era of rampant steroid use, and both the long term and (supposing he was still using) short term effects of those could have been a factor. Also, cocaine never helps. So there could have been a lot of factors that went into his derangement. 

 

I'm looking forward to the ESPN thing, which is supposed to be amazing. One of my favorite commentators has seen large parts of it, and he said FX was luck PvOJS went first, because if it came after the ESPN one, it would have been laughed off the air. 

 

So yeah, he probably did it, though I'm a lot more open to other possibilities than most. 

Speaking of doubts -- the one that troubled me the most at the time was the missing blood.  

 

I just watched the BBC OJ show, where they feature Dear and his claim that Jason did it. But they pointed out one thing that really got me -- Nicole's exposed back had blood drops on it, quite a few and no one collected or tested them.  If those drops had been OJ Simpson's blood... that would have been pretty damning evidence.

[txhorns79]

As far as why Simpson wouldn't confess, look at his refusal to come clean before the civil trial.  Fred Goldman offered to drop the civil case if Simpson would just admit he'd done it.  Simpson would have had no legal repercussions whatsoever and yet he wouldn't do it.

 

I can't believe I'm offering any kind of defense for OJ, but I presume there could be a number of negative repercussions from confessing, even if he could not be tried again for the murders themselves. 

[Jel]

How and when did they plant the blood?  And where did they get the blood that they used for the planting?

Hey now, it's the prosecutor-poster's job to prove it; the defense-poster just has to introduce doubt, amirite?

 

Seriously though, I am not really arguing this, but if I were I'd say all the blood vials were technically at the crime scene, locked in Vanatter's trunk or Lange's lunch box or wherever the hell they were. And several mls of Simpson's collected blood was missing from his sample. It was really just a couple mls that was missing, and that's not much, probably not enough to dampen the corner of a washcloth, but if you don't know that, that missing blood makes an impression and needs an explanation.  None was ever given, as I recall. Someone please correct me if I am wrong though.

 

ETA: I want to add that whenever I have brought that up in convo, it seems to always lead to a big thing about how you have to believe the entire LAPD, detectives who didn't know each other immediately formed a plan to frame Simpson. And it really doesn't have to -- I'd just like to know what happened to the missing blood. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by Jel

[Mittengirl]

Is it possible that the blood is not missing but was never there to begin with? Perhaps the sample was mislabelled or mismeasured?

As far as why OJ never confessed when Goldman offered or anytime since; he may not face legal consequences for the murder, but, had he done so at the civil trial offer I would think the Brown's would have filed for full custody of Sydney and Justin immediately. He is probably, justifiably afraid of "losing" them if he ever confesses. And, of course, OJ's ego/pride would not allow it.

Also, wasn't his mother still alive? I can't see him confessing while she was still around.

Perhaps he also had hopes that in a short time it would blow over and he could go back to his old life of golfing at the country club, like nothing ever happened.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Mittengirl

[RemoteControlFreak]

I just watched the BBC OJ show, where they feature Dear and his claim that Jason did it. But they pointed out one thing that really got me -- Nicole's exposed back had blood drops on it, quite a few and no one collected or tested them.  If those drops had been OJ Simpson's blood... that would have been pretty damning evidence.

It wouldn't have changed anything.  

 

OJ Simpson's defense would still have argued that the blood was somehow planted by the racist cops in the LAPD.

 

And we'd still be here 22 years later with people saying they have doubts.  Short of a confession directly from OJ there will always be people claiming that they're not convinced.  Maybe even with a confession.  People would claim that the confession was coerced or maybe it wasn't the real OJ making the confession but a look-alike.

[Jel]

Is it possible that the blood is not missing but was never there to begin with? Perhaps the sample was mislabelled or mismeasured?

As far as why OJ never confessed when Goldman offered or anytime since; he may not face legal consequences for the murder, but, had he done so at the civil trial offer I would think the Brown's would have filed for full custody of Sydney and Justin immediately. He is probably, justifiably afraid of "losing" them if he ever confesses. And, of course, OJ's ego/pride would not allow it.

Also, wasn't his mother still alive? I can't see him confessing while she was still around.

Perhaps he also had hopes that in a short time it would blow over and he could go back to his old life of golfing at the country club, like nothing ever happened.

It's absolutely possible that it was never missing, definitely within the realm of possibilities. But, I think there is a tendency to explain away or dismiss the crime scene mysteries/questions by people who think he's guilty.  I have a few questions that have never been answered; I don't think there was an LAPD-wide conspiracy to frame Simpson, maybe it was more along the lines of "cover our asses" conspiracy amongst a small number of people. Who knows, but I would like to know about a couple of things. 

 

I think OJ may have compartmentalized it so thoroughly that he doesn't think he did it now.  Or he's just too narcissistic to ever admit to it, after denying it. Or he he afraid that he'll lose everyone in his life if he admits to it.  Or he simply won't ever give Fred Goldman the satisfaction.  I don't think an admission will ever be forthcoming.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Jel

[Crs97]

It is also possible that his children believe in the Faye Resnick/drug dealer angle and he doesn't want to confess and lose them as adults.

[RemoteControlFreak]

There's zero upside in confessing.

 

It won't shorten the sentence for his current crimes.

 

It won't improve his reputation or change his legacy.

 

It won't gain him friends.

 

It won't give him back his pre-murder fame or adulation.

 

Well, maybe there's the money to be gained from an "I Really Did It" book or movie, but I believe the Goldmans could still go after that to continue to recover the money he owes them as a result of the civil suit.

[Avaleigh]

It is also possible that his children believe in the Faye Resnick/drug dealer angle and he doesn't want to confess and lose them as adults.

Supposedly the kids do believe this. If they'd been older it might have been different but I think OJ getting custody pretty much sealed the deal in terms of them believing him. 

[Umbelina]

Well, the reason he's in jail now is that he was trying to get back stuff he sold to hide from the Goldman's so he wouldn't have to pay them the judgement.  Goldman offered to release all financial claims on him if he would just admit it. 

 

So in a way, not confessing led to him being in jail now.  So there was that upside to it all.  Personally I hope he dies in jail, it's still more merciful than what he did to Ron and Nicole, but it's what he deserves.

[whiporee]

 

It was really just a couple mls that was missing, and that's not much, probably not enough to dampen the corner of a washcloth, but if you don't know that, that missing blood makes an impression and needs an explanation.  None was ever given, as I recall. Someone please correct me if I am wrong though.

 

 

A ML is a lot more than it sounds like. I know this from giving my kids liquid medicine all the time. 

 

The prosecution explaining the blood was a weird thing if I remember correctly. The guy who did it was dying or something, and he testified via videotape that although he marked it 8 at the time, now he remembers that it was really 6.2 ML or something. In a strange case, it was one of the stranger things. 

[Finnegan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was blood samples from the back gate and the sock that had EDTA in them, right? Also, these samples were collected later than the others?

I think he did it, but I do think it's possible that some of the forensic evidence was either unintentionally botched or intentionally planted. It didn't have to be an LAPD-wide conspiracy, just a matter of a few people speeding up evidence analysis for someone they had already decided was guilty. It sounds outlandish, but this kind of evidence falsifying happens a surprising amount in police departments across the country.

I really do wonder about that lack of blood. Why would OJ discard his bloody shoes and clothes but keep on his bloody socks to trek through his white-carpeted home and then leave the socks in the middle of his bedroom? Why were there no transfer stains from the socks to the carpet? If he lost his murdering glove at Bundy, why was there no more than a few drops of blood in the Bronco? Wouldn't the bloody exposed hand leave a print on the steering wheel? I haven't heard a satisfying explaination for the murder timeline that accounts for the blood.

Now the domestic abuse evidence...now that I believe in, 100%. Motive galore.

[ketose]

Well, the reason he's in jail now is that he was trying to get back stuff he sold to hide from the Goldman's so he wouldn't have to pay them the judgement.  Goldman offered to release all financial claims on him if he would just admit it. 

 

So in a way, not confessing led to him being in jail now.  So there was that upside to it all.  Personally I hope he dies in jail, it's still more merciful than what he did to Ron and Nicole, but it's what he deserves.

The Goldmans don't have much need for OJ's money, since they obviously never got any. At the time, I think OJ figured it was better that his kids think it wasn't him and that it would blow over after some amount of time. In retrospect, it might have been better if he admitted it and try to atone for it. Then again, in retrospect, he should have thought about not killing Nicole (or Ron) in the first place.

 

ETA: As a technical matter, Very few things can mutate or alter DNA. EDTA or any other "contaminant" did not alter the base pairs or change their sequence. If the sample is intact enough to match OJ's DNA, it's his blood. Planting it is a much more likely possibility than it changing in a test tube. Barry Scheck should be ashamed for positing such bullshit when he based his career on the accuracy of DNA testing.

Edited April 10, 2016 by ketose

[deerstalker]

ETA: As a technical matter, Very few things can mutate or alter DNA. EDTA or any other "contaminant" did not alter the base pairs or change their sequence. If the sample is intact enough to match OJ's DNA, it's his blood. Planting it is a much more likely possibility than it changing in a test tube. Barry Scheck should be ashamed for positing such bullshit when he based his career on the accuracy of DNA testing.

 

I think the suggestion is that the presence of EDTA found in the blood samples on the sock and back gate is an indicator that the blood came from  the blood supplied by OJ to the police to use as a "control" sample. This control sample was missing a portion of the blood that was logged in (the prosecution says it was mislogged.)  This control sample, after being given by OJ at the police station, was then given to one of the detectives, who then inexplicably visited both crimes scenes before logging it in to the crime lab.  I don't think under those circumstances the theory that the some of the evidence was planted, is bullshit.

[jaync]

Simpson play-acted like they didn't fit and refused to put his hands completely into the gloves, pretending to pull and tug on them and pretending that his hands wouldn't go in.

​Even Carl Douglas said that O.J. was acting in that moment.

 

There's really no evidence that points to anyone other than OJ  Simpson.

​How about the LAPD killed Nicole and Ron, for the sole purpose of framing O.J.?  I mean, that theory makes as much sense as the murderer being Jason, or a serial killer of restaurant employees, or a Colombian drug lord.

Edited April 10, 2016 by jaync

[deerstalker]

I'm pretty sure the gloves truly did not fit, for whatever reason. Shapiro and Cochrane both tried on the gloves beforehand.  Their hands were much smaller than OJ's, and it did not fit them.  That's why they were relatively serene about Darden calling OJ up there to try on the gloves.  OJ may have been hamming up the fact that they didn't fit, as well he should if he hoped to get acquitted, but I think most agree that the gloves were indeed too small for OJ's hands.

[Finnegan]

I think the suggestion is that the presence of EDTA found in the blood samples on the sock and back gate is an indicator that the blood came from the blood supplied by OJ to the police to use as a "control" sample. This control sample was missing a portion of the blood that was logged in (the prosecution says it was mislogged.) This control sample, after being given by OJ at the police station, was then given to one of the detectives, who then inexplicably visited both crimes scenes before logging it in to the crime lab. I don't think under those circumstances the theory that the some of the evidence was planted, is bullshit.

Thanks Deerstalker, that's what I meant to say.

As for the other evidence...Evidence that is improperly or illegally handled *should* be discounted, regardless of who it does or does not point to. The justice system has to do its job *properly* if we are going to let it take someone's freedom. Personally I'm a lot more scared of a corrupt police/justice system than I am of individual incorrect acquittals. That's a personal thing, but rules around how evidence should be collected and analyzed are in place for a really good reason.

[mystere]

The thing about the EDTA evidence is that it does not fit with the scenario that the blood was planted. Tiny trace amounts were found in the blood. If blood is preserved with EDTA, you would expect to find A LOT of it upon testing. Experts examining the case believe that the most probable answer is that the machine that was testing for the presence of EDTA was itself contaminated with EDTA from prior testing. This would explain why EDTA was detected in some of the crime scene blood in the Simpson case, and also why it was detected at such tiny levels.

 

This has been rehashed recently given the discussion from the Steve Avery case: http://www.techinsider.io/making-murderer-edta-test-quality-2016-1

[txhorns79]

OJ may have been hamming up the fact that they didn't fit, as well he should if he hoped to get acquitted, but I think most agree that the gloves were indeed too small for OJ's hands.

 

I can't imagine any defense attorney who would encourage a client to "ham it up" when he is on trial for the murder for two people.  All that tells me is the person doesn't take the proceeding seriously, and is either very dumb, or deeply disturbed. 

 

 

The thing about the EDTA evidence is that it does not fit with the scenario that the blood was planted. Tiny trace amounts were found in the blood. If blood is preserved with EDTA, you would expect to find A LOT of it upon testing.

 

Very true.  It never really made sense that blood was "planted" by the police. 

[deerstalker]

The thing about the EDTA evidence is that it does not fit with the scenario that the blood was planted. Tiny trace amounts were found in the blood. If blood is preserved with EDTA, you would expect to find A LOT of it upon testing. Experts examining the case believe that the most probable answer is that the machine that was testing for the presence of EDTA was itself contaminated with EDTA from prior testing. This would explain why EDTA was detected in some of the crime scene blood in the Simpson case, and also why it was detected at such tiny levels.

 

This has been rehashed recently given the discussion from the Steve Avery case: http://www.techinsider.io/making-murderer-edta-test-quality-2016-1

 

 

Perhaps, but that's hardly reassuring either way, correct? "We didn't deliberately plant evidence. We merely cross-contaminated it! Please accept our findings, based on our assertions of precision and accuracy. Thanks!"

 

I can't imagine any defense attorney who would encourage a client to "ham it up" when he is on trial for the murder for two people.  All that tells me is the person doesn't take the proceeding seriously, and is either very dumb, or deeply disturbed.

 

If I am the defense attorney, I would instruct my client to make certain indeed that the jury saw that the gloves did not fit.  Make sure there is no room for doubt about the issue.  Or "ham it up", as they would say. You exaggerate how hard it is to put on, you wave the too-small gloves around making sure they see it, etc.  Plus your client is probably relieved that the gloves do not, in fact, fit. Of course you make it very obvious. Why wouldn't you?

Edited April 11, 2016 by deerstalker