Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think his book, "If I Did It," should put all doubt to rest that he actually did it. Had he pled guilty, I think his lawyers could've argued that he was temporarily insane due to "intermittent explosive disorder," as he certainly had a history of it (maybe he also took steroids, which wouldn't have helped), and others have gotten off that way. But that would've required his admitting it, which he never would (except covertly, in that book). Actually, I always wondered why no one noticed that Nicole had obviously set up a romantic evening with Ron (little black dress, bubble bath drawn, candles lit all over the house and around the bathtub, etc.), which no doubt set O.J. off. Not that she didn't have a right -- she was divorced -- but that was the day she was totally done with him and wrote him off by dissing him in public; it was also the day his girlfriend dumped him. Injury to the narcissistic ego was huge. The cops didn't HAVE to frame him. Still, it's a real tragedy all around, including OJ's own life. "One that loved not wisely, but too well." (From Shakespeare's "Othello.")
Okay thanks. But if the police framed him by using blood that he donated previously, than why didn't the defense or the prosecution, bother to check to see if any of the blood he donated was still there, or if it has been stolen, and the place possibly broken into?
As for the bloody fingerprints, I read that you can lift a print from an object and plant it at another scene, and the police would not notice it was a plant, unless they were actually checking for certain signs.
However, planting a bloody print, I am not sure. I think you would need Simpson's actual fingers for that.
And even though DNA was in it's infancy back then, they still used it, and it still lead back to Simpson, so I don't think that infancy was a problem, was it?
All the prints and all the evidence was there.
The defense squalled and yelped about imaginary police misconduct (remember poor Dennis Fung) and accused Furman of tossing a bloody glove behind Cato's apartment. The defense didn't defend; they made up nonsense and placed notions where no facts existed. The judge allowed it. And the idiotic, scared jury pretended to buy it.
There are no doubt some people who admire what the defense did. Decent people abhor it. They were masters at changing the subject and rearranging the facts. The made used car salesmen look honest. And yes, the prosecution was inept. It was a sad time in American jurisprudence.
The more compelling conspiracy theory I've heard is that it was his son who did it.
His son had an air tight alibi. At the time two people were being slashed to death by his father, he was working in the kitchen (which was visible from the dining room) at a restaurant called Jackson's. He was seen by several dozen people, including the owner of the restaurant Alan Jackson. Alan* is the son of a well-respected L.A. radio personality, Michael Jackson, who had a daily radio show on KABC at the time of the murders.
The day after the murder, when all of L.A. was reeling from hearing the news, I heard Michael Jackson, in an "OMG moment" say, "OJ's son works at my son's restaurant. Jason was working there last night." Tens of thousands of us listening to the radio that morning knew Jason Simpson had an alibi. As did the LAPD after they interviewed his employer and co-workers.
*Named after his grandfather, the actor Alan Ladd.
Don't confuse moral guilt with legal guilt. LA County could not prove legal guilt due to incompetence of its police department. The way you ferret out incompetence is to not let them get away with sloppy police work, and the OJ trial did that in spades. But that has nothing to do with moral guilt. OJ did it, there is no need to come up with conspiracy theories just because LAPD is incompetent.
Don't confuse moral guilt with legal guilt. LA County could not prove legal guilt due to incompetence of its police department. The way you ferret out incompetence is to not let them get away with sloppy police work, and the OJ trial did that in spades. But that has nothing to do with moral guilt. OJ did it, there is no need to come up with conspiracy theories just because LAPD is incompetent.
This...just want to add not only was the LAPD incompetent, but the DA office was also incompetent and the DA was playing politics when it came to the location of the trial.
Well as far as theory goes that his son did it, and O.J. covered it up. I don't think it makes sense for O.J. to bleed all over two crimes scenes, to cover up someone else. It makes logical sense to erase the evidence of the real killer, not add additional evidence, of an accessory, in order to cover up the original. You just need to get rid of the original evidence. No accessory evidence is logically necessary.
But his son had a good alibi so I guess that theory is out the window. As for how O.J. cut his hand, I think at some point of the murder, he took his gloves off since his bloody prints were also there as well.
As far as the police framing system, the idea of the police doing it, cause they think he was guilty doesn't really make sense to me. There is a lot of Simpson's blood at both scenes. So what good does it do to frame him, if you are just going to take 1 and a half CCs of his blood and plant it? There is all this other blood, that has already been documented and accounted for.
So it will still lead to the real killer, whether the police plant 1 and a half CCs or not. It seems like a moot framing, that will not change the already set in motion outcome. So what was the point?
There was supposedly a book that put forth that his son could have done so, but the police never did look for a suspect beyond Simpson. I read briefly somewhere that police talked to his son but that was it.
If there was a reason his son was never really looked at, lets again hear it. But I remember an entire theory based off of it.
I have been privy to many, many incredible events in my life, some of which horrible people should not even have the privilege of knowing, and I too, even at a young age, felt that doubt should prevail, and Simpson should be cleared and set free. People today fancy themselves the superior SJW, and make up their own realities, however. The SJW people are wrong.
If Facebook was around back then, or a lot of cell phones... omg. He'd have fried. There is no way...
Well even if they did look at his son as a suspect, his son's DNA or prints were not found at the scene. There was no physical evidence to consider him a suspect. But I don't believe that his son would have done it.
Because if the son and O.J. were so careful to clean up the crime scene that well, that there is not a trace of the son's DNA or prints there, then there was no reason for O.J. to come and spill his blood and prints at the scene.
Since O.J. and the son would have cleaned up the scene so well, the police just wouldn't have found any suspects, and they would have left it at that. There was no reason for O.J. to bleed all over the scene and take the fall, when they cleaned the scene so well. So it doesn't make sense to me, that the son could have done it therefore.
You said that doubt should prevail. Which doubt exactly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
