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

[BooBear]

I'm watching something on ID channel on OJ and they are on the Bronco scene. I'm rolling my eyes because it was all so dramatic, such a big dramatic, poor me.

 

I watched that last night. It was a documentary on the OJ trial that was basically 100% found footage that you might not have seen before. I particularly like Marcia Clark wanting to beat the camera guy up as she left to hear the verdict.  I think she knew that 4 hours was not enough for a guilty.  Perhaps it was because they focused on it so much but I was angry watching the crazy joy that african american's had when the verdict was read.

 

And also, just me or is it odd that no one ever tells the story of the clerk who read the verdict?  I know for a fact that clerk's have to read the verdict before anyone else does because they have to make sure it is correct, ie. how odd would it be if they opened the verdict and the foreperson failed to write the decision, so I wonder what she was thinking / if Ito knew.

[ennui]

I believe the verdict is shown to the judge before the clerk reads it.

 

There’s something about this murder … There have certainly been many, many horrific murders since (perhaps every day), and yet this particular murder captures the public imagination.

[CeeBeeGee]

That's what I thought, which is why I was dumbfounded when I read the allegations in Weller's book. She wrote that there were two large slashes in addition to the one across Nicole's throat: one across her breasts and one across her waist/stomach. She said the throat slash was left to right, the next/breasts was right to left, and the last/waist was left to right again. She also wrote that, at the viewing, Simpson said "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry" to Nicole and that he was trying to raise or roll her skirt until Juditha intervened. Juditha knew that Nicole's head, although buttressed, was propped on rather than connected to her spine so the pawing by Simpson was ill-advised.

 

What. The. Fuck.

 

Jesus, dude. You fucking cut her head off. Can't you stop molesting her this one last time while YOUR CHILDREN are grieving?

[33kaitykaity]

Vincent Bugliosi delivering the final summation that should have come from Clark/Darden.  I love this.  

 

 

And I am one of those, a white girl in my late 20s, who fell deeply in love with Barry, so much so that I wanted to have Barry's baby.  

[Umbelina]

Wow.

 

He does benefit from hindsight, and there are a few places I felt the jury would have recoiled, but damn, he actually might have convinced that jury.  Although Cochan would have torn him apart of "Fuhrman hasn't been a racist for 6 years" and a few other points.  His BEST argument was proving how many people would have had to put their careers on the line, and even their freedom from jail, to conspire with people, many of whom they didn't even know, to conspire to frame OJ.

[starri]

Kary Mullis was going to testify for the defense?

 

I don't know whether to be surprised since so much of the defense was about sliming his life's work, or not surprised because he is, in fact, insane.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Wow.

 

He does benefit from hindsight, and there are a few places I felt the jury would have recoiled, but damn, he actually might have convinced that jury.  Although Cochan would have torn him apart of "Fuhrman hasn't been a racist for 6 years" and a few other points.  His BEST argument was proving how many people would have had to put their careers on the line, and even their freedom from jail, to conspire with people, many of whom they didn't even know, to conspire to frame OJ.

 

Only had time to watch the first 10 minutes, but Bugliosi was so right when he said what keeps the attention of a jury.  In the one case where I served, my fellow jurors wanted to say not guilty, because the ASA wasn't "passionate" enough, and the PD was very much passionate-in her summations, arguments, etc.  And it was only when the ASA showed passion in his closing argument that these maroons changed their minds. We were thisclose to a hung jury because of these idiots.

[Umbelina]

He really gets going around the 1 hour mark.  Sound cut out for me completely during the last 45 minutes or so.

 

He was a bit insulting to the jury at times, inadvertently mostly, but a couple of times, perhaps on purpose.  "You'd have to be an idiot to believe that!"  referring to something Cochran said or did, not a direct quote but that was close.  Also his "black and white" analogy didn't really seem appropriate for this jury, and adding the black squid ink so OJ could slink away hidden by the blackness really seemed to be cutting it much too close. 

 

Worth a listen anyway, and I think Cochan would have torn Resnick to shreds because of the book money and cocaine, so it's a bit pie in the sky.  His BEST points were clarifying when they found the blood, where, and just how many people who didn't even really know each other would have to conspire to frame OJ.  He nailed that.

[hoosiermom]

Loved this! I am just going to pretend that he was found guilty now.

[NiJo9999]

BUT he took the fifth when asked if he tampered with the evidence in this case. That is like saying he did or else why not answer?

By that logic, if you wish to be fair, OJ's failure to take the stand implicates him. 

[Umbelina]

I was just thinking about that last night.  There must be some great reasons why it's up to the one charged with a crime whether or not to take the stand, probably something to do with "presumed innocent" and a bunch of other things I haven't even considered and I'm fairly sure lawyers will point out here.  Still, there is a part of me that feels like they should have to testify.

 

Is that just a US law and practice, or is it true in other first world countries as well?  England?  France?  etc?

[toodywoody]

Isn't it different between the civil and criminal trials also? That they don't have that option in a civil trial?

[GHScorpiosRule]

I love Bugliosi so so much! I miss him. He was so magnetic and continues to keep me engaged. I wish I could have heard his summations and arguments in the Manson case.

[starri]

I was just thinking about that last night.  There must be some great reasons why it's up to the one charged with a crime whether or not to take the stand, probably something to do with "presumed innocent" and a bunch of other things I haven't even considered and I'm fairly sure lawyers will point out here.  Still, there is a part of me that feels like they should have to testify.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think it also goes into possible Fifth Amendment areas.

 

Besides, it seems like the very rarest of circumstances that a defense attorney would want to leave his/her client open to aggressive cross-examination.

 

I have to wonder what would happen if someone tried to stage a mock OJ trial like Bugliosi did with Lee Harvey Oswald.  Unfortunately, the only two high-profile former prosecutors I can think of are Nancy Grace and Star Jones, which...no.

[choclatechip45]

I'm pretty sure Star Jones was very pro OJ.

[Crs97]

 

I was just thinking about that last night.  There must be some great reasons why it's up to the one charged with a crime whether or not to take the stand, probably something to do with "presumed innocent" and a bunch of other things I haven't even considered and I'm fairly sure lawyers will point out here.  Still, there is a part of me that feels like they should have to testify.

The Fifth Amendment states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

A defendant can not be compelled to testify in a criminal case, and he can invoke the 5th amendment in a civil case if his testimony could subject him to criminal responsibilities.  However, once OJ was found not guilty, double jeopardy set in so that he cannot face criminal penalties even if he now confessed to the murders.  That's why he didn't have to testify at the criminal trial, but was required to testify at the civil trial.

[FuriousStyles]

Legally...the defense doesnt have to do anything. They dont have to present evidence or call witnesses or even make opening or closing statements. Only the prosecution is required to do those things. Its really just based on the fact that the burden of proving a defendant's guilt is on the prosecution.

[helenamonster]

I was just thinking about that last night.  There must be some great reasons why it's up to the one charged with a crime whether or not to take the stand, probably something to do with "presumed innocent" and a bunch of other things I haven't even considered and I'm fairly sure lawyers will point out here.  Still, there is a part of me that feels like they should have to testify.

 

As others have said, it's a constitutional right that we have as Americans to not incriminate ourselves. It's the same reason arresting officers have to read the Miranda Rights to the accused. I think it's much more useful when it comes to smaller or more ambiguous crimes, when someone who's been arrested might not know that what they did was illegal and might admit to doing it without full understanding of the consequences. Obviously murder is illegal and anyone fit to stand trial knows this but the rights still have to apply.

 

Like any of the rights laid out in the Constitution, the right to avoid self-incrimination exists to protect people from being railroaded or taken advantage of by their government.

[Umbelina]

 

It makes me sick that this is coming up soon...

[smiley13]

 

It makes me sick that this is coming up soon...

Most of these videos that are being posted say that they are restricted,

[ennui]

I seem to recall that Jodi Arias had a major conflict with her attorneys, that she wanted to take the stand, and they advised against it. The accused does open themselves up to cross-examination. And it can expose their arrogance, as many L&O episodes will illustrate. One of my personal favorites was L&O with Robert Knepper ... the character's arrogance did him in.

[riverheightsnancy]

 

My $.02 for the young'uns:  In my lifetime, no other news story has ever been so pervasive.  It was always on tv, every magazine, every newspaper--so basically ALL media.  It was constantly being discussed.  You heard "OJ" maybe 50 times every day, whether you wanted to or not. 

 

And for an amazing number of people, it wasn't a matter of dispassionate observation.  I had a relatively close friend, going back ten years, who permanently withdrew when she learned I wasn't pro-OJ.  The intensity of her commitment--either way--stuns me almost as much now as it did then.

 

There hasn't been anything like it, since.  Maybe the McCarthy hearings were like that.  Our grandparents would probably be astonished to know how fuzzy our knowledge of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping has become.  Mmm. . .the Lincoln assassination, for sure. . .

Great post. You are so correct. I was 30 in '94 and I remember sitting at my computer the night of the Bronco chase and I was doing some type of graphic layouts in Publisher. The internet was not so awesome back then. I had the TV on and it "may" have been the X-Files (it was on on Fridays back then) and I was pissed that they broke into my favorite show for news. Well, this slow speed chase went on for hours and I remember that it was finally over around 11-11:30 or so (EST) because I went to bed right after that. I was glued to the TV during that chase. During the trial, it was all over just like Candall said. I 100% remember the exact moment that the verdict came down and exactly where I was and people's reactions. It was that big. It is like the morning of 9/11. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard  about the attack. Being on the east coast in NJ, we were in a state of panic. 

 

It's funny that you mention the Lindbergh trial. I LIVE in that town and know some of the history. It was the most sensational and read about trial ever and was the catalyst for several laws regarding kidnapping. It was called the "Trial of the Century" because of the massive public interest. It took over 2 years to find the killer and it is estimated that over 50,000 people swarmed our little town to see and be part of the trial.  It was one of the first, if not the first trial to have live radio broadcast and had people in the court room standing 10 deep to hear and see the trial. They are currently trying to refurb the hotel across the street from the famous courthouse and make it some sort of sightseeing thing, but no one really cares anymore. It is too long ago for people to remember. Even though the young kids get tours and see the artifacts, it doesn't mean anything to them. I would equate the Cosby case as the closet to the OJ case today in terms of a beloved figure and their downfall. There are lots of people who do not believe that Cosby might be guilty, similar to the way people feel about OJ.

[candall]

Well, there you go, RHNancy.  I was oblivious that there are lots of people who subscribe to the theory that. . .what?. . .50 women are all lying about a humiliating sexual encounter to ruin a beloved national icon.  Thank you, because I don't want to make another trivial remark that costs me a friend.

 

It's interesting that the townspeople don't want to give up on the Lindbergh notoriety, and also sort of bittersweet.  Remind me again who built those gigantic pyramids?

Edited March 3, 2016 by candall

[Simon Boccanegra]

I hope that since the show is covering in detail Darden's many bad moments courtesy of Cochran, we get to see Bailey getting so flustered by Marcia Clark in the Furhman direct/cross part of the trial. Yes, ultimately, that witness caused many problems for the prosecution, but Clark really got the better of ol' Lee not once but several times in their exchanges. No love lost there. Her killer line was when she addressed him like a disobedient child: "Excuse me, Mr. Bailey Stand up and speak when it is your turn." Toobin writes that it looked as though he wanted to take a swing at her.  

[ButterQueen]

Only had time to watch the first 10 minutes, but Bugliosi was so right when he said what keeps the attention of a jury.  In the one case where I served, my fellow jurors wanted to say not guilty, because the ASA wasn't "passionate" enough, and the PD was very much passionate-in her summations, arguments, etc.  And it was only when the ASA showed passion in his closing argument that these maroons changed their minds. We were thisclose to a hung jury because of these idiots.

If it was before closing arguments, were you really discussing the case/verdict with each other? Juries are not allowed to discuss the case until deliberation. I'm confused.

[GHScorpiosRule]

If it was before closing arguments, were you really discussing the case/verdict with each other? Juries are not allowed to discuss the case until deliberation. I'm confused.

 

No, we weren't discussing the case, while it was still ongoing. But during deliberation, some said how they wanted to acquit because the ASA wasn't passionate enough until the closing arguments.  I posted pages back, how I was the only holdout because I was being pressured due to some wanting to leave and go on their vacation.  So we voted, went over the instructions, evidence, etc.  And during that, was when some revealed one reason they wanted to acquit. Had NOTHING to do with the State's case at all. Idiots.

[Umbelina]

Is F. Lee Bailey the only member of the defense who has never had any doubts about Simpson's innocence?

F. Lee Bailey is not a man of nuances or doubts. He came into the case absolutely believing O.J. Simpson was completely innocent. He had a theory that the timeline did not permit him to do it. He wanted O.J. Simpson to testify, and he thought he'd be a great witness. I think the civil trial demonstrated that maybe Lee was not 100 percent right about his assessment.

I took a very, very strong view that O.J. Simpson should not testify because I thought that we wanted to keep the focus on the police. We wanted to keep the focus on the misconduct. Once you put a defendant on the witness stand, everything else becomes irrelevant in the trial. All the jury wants to [do is] ... to look the defendant in the eye, and they want to say, "Do I believe what he said, or don't I believe what he said?" That's not the trial we wanted to see conducted. We wanted to see a trial of the prosecutors, of the police, of the labs. We wanted to put the state on trial.

But is that really your job as a defense attorney?

That's my job: to put the state on trial, to make sure that the state behaves properly, that the police behave properly. One potentially guilty murderer going free will not destroy a society; a corrupt police force, a corrupt prosecution, a corrupt state, will.

Maybe I'm skewed by the fact that in the 1970s I litigated many cases in the former Soviet Union, and I've litigated cases all over the world where corrupt police forces and corrupt states conspired to go after innocent people, so I'm much more worried about the government than I am about an individual, possibly guilty criminal.

interview: alan dershowitz

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dershowitz.html

[ButterQueen]

She also wrote that, at the viewing, Simpson said "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry" to Nicole and that he was trying to raise or roll her skirt until Juditha intervened. Juditha knew that Nicole's head, although buttressed, was propped on rather than connected to her spine so the pawing by Simpson was ill-advised.

Oh God, that makes me so sad and sick. Poor Nicole and Ron.

[ButterQueen]

No, we weren't discussing the case, while it was still ongoing. But during deliberation, some said how they wanted to acquit because the ASA wasn't passionate enough until the closing arguments.  I posted pages back, how I was the only holdout because I was being pressured due to some wanting to leave and go on their vacation.  So we voted, went over the instructions, evidence, etc.  And during that, was when some revealed one reason they wanted to acquit. Had NOTHING to do with the State's case at all. Idiots.

I didn't see your earlier post. Glad you held onto your convictions. I thought I was misunderstanding which was why I said I was confused. I apologize.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I didn't see your earlier post. Glad you held onto your convictions. I thought I was misunderstanding which was why I said I was confused. I apologize.

 

No apology necessary. The threads for this show are so super crazy busy and fast, some comments are bound to be missed.  I'm surprised I held onto my convictions because I'm a wuss. But, this wasn't about me, so I'm glad we had the paper vote thing, because I wrote out I didn't appreciate being pressured because some wanted to be done to go on vacation.

[Jade Foxx]

Knife reportedly found on Simpson's property - LOL WHAT?

[Lexxy]

And the reason it took so long to find is because the idiot cop KEPT it and only got caught because he tried to engrave it.  It's like the universe is all, "Oh, you thought this case couldn't get more ridiculous?  WATCH THIS SHIT"

[hendersonrocks]

This stuff about the knife is just unreal. LAPD must be losing their shit if in fact an off-duty kept the knife, for years, and wanted to frame it for his wall. What in the everloving fuck. THIS CASE IS INSANE.

 

Here's TMZ's report - they're the ones who broke the story.

[Simon Boccanegra]

The timing is fascinating, just as this case has come to the forefront of the public consciousness again, with some of us reliving memories and others gripped by the subject for the first time. Did Ryan Murphy set a ripple in motion?

 

I wonder if Simpson will ever crack, conclude he has nothing to lose, tell all. I'm not talking about his self-serving If I Did It crime fiction, which I would tend to dismiss. He's the only one who really can shed light on what happened that night, so it would have to come either from him or from some intimate of his who heard it from his lips and then spilled. I don't mean just "Yes, I did it" (because, duh); I'm perhaps too curious about the order of things. I want to know, the way we know exactly what happened at, for example, Cielo Drive in 1969.  

 

I've seen one reenactment that has him attacking them both after Ron's arrival, but more often the theory has been that Ron arrived when Nicole's murder was either in progress or completed. I tend to think it was the latter, partly because of the "Hey, hey, HEY!" testimony, which Ron's stepmother said was exactly what he would have said if he came across something alarming and wanted to stop it.  

Edited March 4, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[ElDosEquis]

This stuff about the knife is just unreal. LAPD must be losing their shit if in fact an off-duty kept the knife, for years, and wanted to frame it for his wall. What in the everloving fuck. THIS CASE IS INSANE.

 

Here's TMZ's report - they're the ones who broke the story.

 

I bet Nancy Grace is going to need a 12 pack of Hanes underwear for her broadcast tonight?

[Umbelina]

This is so nuts.  It's even more nuts to think that no one else ever knew about this knife, that this cop never bragged about it, or showed it to ANYONE?  Oh, and bullshit "I thought the case was closed."  A police officer never heard of "cold case?"  Or knew that until a crime is solved, it's still an open crime?  What?

 

Hopefully we'll get more details about exactly where that construction worker found it.  Oh!  The construction worker also never ever mentioned that to anyone?  In what universe?

 

That could explain why Simpson was in that narrow walkway behind Kato's room though, shovels and stuff were also back there, or, if it was buried back around the pool, why OJ was coming that way to get in one of those side doors.  Or did he bury it later, since he had ample opportunity before he was actually arrested?  If it's unrelated, that is a very, very weird find.  It can't be a complete hoax, because the police are actually testing the knife now.  I don't think even a retired cop would con the police into that.

 

 

 

 

The pool was removed and changed out completely.  The tennis courts were left alone.  Many changes to the house and the Ashford gate was completely removed during construction, and that side closed off.  Driveway was also reconfigured.  You can see all of the major changes on Google Earth now.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Umbelina

[ElDosEquis]

The idea that a cop held on to something like that doesn't surprise me. I have a BIL who is a retired LAPD motor/traffic cop and he is a total AH - Some of the alleged hijinks that he said happened while he was out on the streets leave me no doubt that another cop would hang on to something like that.

 And if it ISN'T part of the OJ case, who would put it on display with the case number on the frame?

[Simon Boccanegra]

Well, putting myself in the frame of mind of Simpson here (ugh), I'd have dug the hole before the killings. Then it would just be a matter of filling it in. It wouldn't need to be that much of a hole to fill in. (But still, another thing to do while Allan Park cooled his heels?)

 

The thing I wonder is, how did freshly turned earth on his property not get discovered? 

 

I guess he could have buried it days later, but that seems like a pretty big item on the to-do list to leave until after the Chicago golf trip, and he was under suspicion very quickly.  

[Umbelina]

Hidden after the murders, deep in a bush or something, buried later, he had plenty of time to do that, before he was arrested or after the trial.  I always thought the "search time" was short, in a "how could they possibly have looked at everything in a few hours, it can take me longer than that to find my keys" way, and my house and property is much, much smaller than OJ's.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Umbelina

[BBDi]

Maybe stashed it somewhere quickly right after the crime then buried it within a relatively short time after returning from Chicago?

But if I were him I would have dumped it at LAX or in Chicago during that period before he was under suspicion.

[riverheightsnancy]

I heard that it was a buck knife (the kind that folds). Wasn't that a part of the case, or OJ was supposed to have one? Here's the other thing, how did the police not find a freshly made hole when they canvased the property? No matter if the hole was deep, a new hole looks like a new hole! 

 

ETA: There is also contention (on the sports shows) that its is "suspicious" that the knife shows up during a run of a TV show that has waning ratings (not sure if any of that is true, bit the sports guys don't quite believe it). 

Edited March 4, 2016 by riverheightsnancy

[Umbelina]

The cops really were not at the property long enough to do a complete search.  I always thought that. OJ was back in that evening, his daughter basically never left, etc. 

 

Update from TMZ with video of cop interview.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/03/04/o-j-simpson-buried-knife-found-police-news-conference/

[psychoticstate]

I heard that it was a buck knife (the kind that folds). Wasn't that a part of the case, or OJ was supposed to have one? Here's the other thing, how did the police not find a freshly made hole when they canvased the property? No matter if the hole was deep, a new hole looks like a new hole! 

 

ETA: There is also contention (on the sports shows) that its is "suspicious" that the knife shows up during a run of a TV show that has waning ratings (not sure if any of that is true, bit the sports guys don't quite believe it). 

 

Seems that Simpson had a knife that was in the Rockingham bedroom but was unused.  They did say he had purchased a knife shortly before the murders while he was filming that Frogman show.

 

I suppose it's possible that he buried it under a plant or shrub.  Or maybe even buried it under one of the children's toys - - as I recall there was a playhouse or something like that in the yard.  Unless the LAPD moved that, they wouldn't notice. 

 

I always figured the shovel in the back of the Bronco was because Simpson intended on carrying Nicole's body somewhere and burying it but the knife being buried sheds a new light.  It's certainly entirely possible as Umbelina suggested that Simpson dug that hole at some point before he left that night to do his killing.  Could he have returned to Rockingham, carried the shovel to the yard, buried the knife and then returned the shovel to his Bronco?  I suppose anything is possible.

[ElDosEquis]

I was under the impression that they LAPD found the box to the knife but not the knife? I do remember the testimony about OJ visiting the shop and buying the knife. I also seem to remember the instruction he was give from a consultant on the show he did on how to kill a person (Cut their throat and keep them from making noise).

[Simon Boccanegra]

I always figured the shovel in the back of the Bronco was because Simpson intended on carrying Nicole's body somewhere and burying it but the knife being buried sheds a new light.

 

That's an interesting theory, but I always thought he planned this out to happen in a narrow window of time between the alibi he'd staged with Kaelin and the trip to Chicago, so he would look like an unlikely suspect (and indeed, one of the defense's cornerstones was the narrow window of time). Lugging around and burying the body of an adult woman would be both risky and extremely time-consuming; I don't see how he could possibly make his flight.  

Edited March 4, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[ElDosEquis]

I hate to admit this, but the day after the bronco chase (It was a Saturday) I woke up early and drove by the Rockingham house.

 

From what I remember, it was on a triangular lot at the end of the block and it had shrubs/greenery that shielded the house from the street, Looking back? You theoretically could have thrown a knife into the bushes and not have it hit the ground, where you'd naturally look for something like a knife?

 

Just saw that they think it had been buried, never mind....

Edited March 4, 2016 by ElDosEquis

[psychoticstate]

That's an interesting theory, but I always thought he planned this out to happen in a narrow window of time between the alibi he'd staged with Kaelin and the trip to Chicago, so he would look like an unlikely suspect (and indeed, one of the defense's cornerstones was the narrow window of time). Lugging around and burying the body of an adult woman would be both risky and extremely time-consuming; I don't see how he could possibly make his flight.  

 

I think he intended to get to Nicole's condo earlier than he did.  Kato ruined his plans by inviting himself along on the McDonalds jaunt.  I think his initial plan was to say he was going to McDonalds, swing by Nicole's condo and eliminate her.  He could swing by the Mickey D's drive thru on the way to Bundy or on the way back and return with a bag of food, "proving" his alibi.  Having Kato tag along set him back. 

 

The main reason I think this, besides the presence of the shovel, is despite what a shitty human being Simpson is, I don't think he would plan to kill his ex-wife and leave her butchered body where his children could wake up and find her.  He also didn't account for Ron to come upon the scene.  Had Ron not shown up, would Simpson have attempted to carry Nicole, perhaps unconscious, off?  Hard to say.  I'm not familiar enough with that area of Brentwood to know if there is anywhere he could drive to fairly quickly in order to bury her and return home in time for his flight. 

 

I definitely don't believe Shapiro's theory that Simpson went there to slash her tires and things got out of hand when Ron showed up. 

[Trillium]

Insane, just like everything else in this case. However, finding the knife at the time of trial wouldn't have mattered. It would be just one more thing that the LAPD planted to frame him the defense would argue.

Truth is stranger than fiction indeed.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I definitely don't believe Shapiro's theory that Simpson went there to slash her tires and things got out of hand when Ron showed up.

 

Oh, yes, that was risible. I don't think that that was a serious theory, though. Just something Plea Bargainer for the Stars concocted and floated to avert a trial.  

[Umbelina]

In a weird way, finding the knife NOW, rather than then, would make it more believable to people who still think OJ didn't do this.

 

I keep thinking of the Goldmans.

 

Just noticed that area right behind Arnell's room is labeled:  Potting area.