Cinnie said:

In his suicide note he said "Don't remember me for the OJ I am today but for the OJ I used to be" ...that's pretty much saying it all right there. Remember him in WHAT way? A killer? Yep. And how did he know the cops were ONLY seeking him as a suspect?

As for the Bruno Maglis - they're rare. Now, what are the chances that OJ and another dude in ALL of L.A. are gonna have the same shoes, shoes in which were used in the killing of 2 peopl, 1 of which OJ KNEW?

The glove probably shrunk due to all the blood soaked onto it.

Cinnie said:

I watched damn near the whole trial. The prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, period. There were so many things wrong with that trial that I don't know where to begin, seriously.

-The incompetence of the investigators, paticularly with regard to preserving the chain of evidence. Contrary to what has been stated here, taking evidence home is a cardinal sin and NOT a common practice at all because preserving the chain of evidence is paramount, especially in a high profile case.

-Judge Ito is the worst judge I've ever seen. I've worked in a courtroom for 22 years with dozens of judges and Ito was star-struck idiot to the point of not being able to control his courtroom. For example, he allowed way too much grandstanding by the attorneys and his jury insructions were never specific enough to be clearly understood. Most of the judges I work with were appalled.

Christoper Darden and Marcia Clark were too busy trying to cover the mistakes of the LAPD and screwing each other to properly prosecute the case. For example, they repeatedly failed on re-direct after the defense shredded their witnesses on cross examinations one after the other. Darden admitted the affair in his book.

I could go on and on but procedurally the trial was an f'd up circus and guilty or not a conviction was unlikely because it isn't enough to believe in the guilt of a defendant...it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

angel345 said:

Not really. The glove could've come off during the struggle, thus making his now-bare hand susceptible to injury (i.e. cuts).

MuthaFunka said:

I've not read the book either, but I just perused some stuff from it online. Check this out...

* Jason didn't exhibit "just violent behavior," he dealt with a clinically diagnosed Intermittent Explosive Disorder, for which he was medicated. He was known to snap and go completely apesh*t on folk since he was a kid. Just two months before the murder, he'd checked himself into Cedar-Sinai Hospital because he thought he was going to "rage" soon, but after released he is said to have refused his mood stabilizing medication.

* He tried to commit suicide once by stabbing himself with scissors; another time by slashing his wrists with broken glass; and another time by ODing on his meds. He once almost broke a girlfriend's neck by throwing her into a bathtub. He once beat up another girlfriend at his own birthday party... and tried to strangle her later the same night. He once attacked yet another girlfriend with a big-ass knife and cut off her hair. And he once attacked a former employer with a big-ass knife, an offense for which he was, in fact, on probation when the murders were committed.

* Jason and Nicole were known to go on casual dinner and dancing dates, and some people in their circle reported suspicions Jason had developed (presumably unrequited) romantic feelings for her. Apparently the night of the murders, Nicole and family was supposed to go visit the restaurant that Jason worked at. They, of course, cancelled and ended up at another restaurant. When they cancelled, Jason supposedly left work pissed a bit early that night... a good 45 mins. prior to the murders. If, say, he went to confront Nicole and ran into her with Ron, maybe the !@#$ hit the fan?

* Jason and O.J. were often at odds. Jason once snapped and attacked a statue of his father with a baseball bat. If this is true, Jason's feelings for Nicole probably exacerbated the strife between the two and, if Jason committed the crimes, not only might he have done it with the initial intent of implicating O.J., but he would have had access to virtually anything in O.J.'s possession -- like clothes, shoes, gloves... even his Bronco, all of which he was known to use at will.

* Ron and Nicole were likely killed with a big-ass chef's knife. Well, chef Jason was known to own a set of his own big-ass chef's knives that he usually kept with him. (More on that later.)

* When asked his whereabouts at the time of the murders, Jason first said he worked late that night (but co-workers eventually conceded that he had left early), then he said he was with his girlfriend (but she has said he wasn't), then he said he went home after work to watch TV.

* Several international crime scene experts were consulted, and while they generally support the notion that while O.J. was at the crime scene sometime that night, they say forensic evidence suggests a younger, stronger, more able-bodied man committed the murders.

* Jason was never questioned by police, and while O.J.'s fingerprints were not found at the scene, Jason's prints were never tested against the unknown prints there. And Jason's DNA would possibly have matched some of the blood evidence that was acquired.

* A day after the murders, O.J. is said to have retained a high-powered criminal attorney for Jason (purpose unknown); and Jason's psychiatrist was discovered to have shredded Jason's records.

Put this all together, and it's no slam dunk, but it does make you wonder.

Oh... and about Jason's knives: A while after the murders, the book's author was able to purchase a box of Jason's belongings that Jason had put in storage but (stupidly) failed to pay fees for. Inside the box were, among other things, pictures of Jason in a skull cap similar to the one cops say the assailant may have been wearing, a diary with entries around the time of the murder referring to him as a "Jeckyl and Hyde," who was "living in the year of the knife," and... yep, one of those big-ass knives, which experts say could have been the murder weapon.
[Edited 5/22/09 16:02pm]

MuthaFunka said:

The suicide note doesn't prove anything, and it doesn't necessarily spell murder. Heck, I'm not the same woman I used to be. Are you the same man you used to be? The same question goes for all. When spouses or former spouses are murdered, the first person law enforcement goes after is the other spouse. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I've read that he was into some shady stuff. So, to go from a football hero to a zero, that could be what he meant.

MuthaFunka said:

Bruh... folk get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time -- if only because most criminals aren't stupid enough to leave much direct evidence. And of the things you mention, the only ones that weren't circumstantial were the blood droplets (And why again couldn't that have been Jason's? ) and the Magli prints. (And why again couldn't they have been Jason's? ) Other things you mention weren't even introduced as evidence at all! That completely unrevealing note wasn't introduced, and I don't think that silly tricycle-speed chase was either.

HOWEVER... lest I sound like one who was convinced O.J. was not guilty, let me say I wasn't. He very well could have been the culprit. The LAPD just screwed up in proving it... and while they screwed up, they also screwed up in not even considering -- just for a second -- that a convicted assailant who had a possible motive, the means, the opportunity and a record of not merely hitting folk, but actually trying to kill them... with knives , might actually be their man in a knife murder! My 8-year-old could have done a better job at investigating that case!
[Edited 5/23/09 1:27am]

MuthaFunka said:

Though laws vary from state to state, it would look as if OJ is guilty to the public because it arouses more suspicion than before. However, I agree with some here that the case was very messy.

MuthaFunka said:

The suicide note doesn't prove anything, and it doesn't necessarily spell murder. Heck, I'm not the same woman I used to be. Are you the same man you used to be? The same question goes for all. When spouses or former spouses are murdered, the first person law enforcement goes after is the other spouse. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I've read that he was into some shady stuff. So, to go from a football hero to a zero, that could be what he meant.

babynoz said:

Isn't Darden deceased along with Kardashian and Cochran? I'll bet Kardashian would roll over in his grave if he could because of his out of control daughters.
[Edited 5/23/09 5:41am]

MuthaFunka said:

One more thing I forgot to consider. If there was a struggle, wouldn't it be possible to have scratch marks on his face or other parts of his body? There were no battle scars to be seen nor mentioned in the case.

Lammastide said:

Not in murder cases. To even bring it to trial there has to be more than circumstsantial evidence, that's my point.

So you think LAPD NEVER looked at ANYONE else BUT OJ? You don't think they gave Jason a sniff? Why do you feel confident they didn't?

And the things I mentioned point toward OJ and not Jason. It's WAY more than what the author has.

It's all circumstantial, sure. But no moreso than the case built around O.J. (And, in fact, a LOT more incriminating.) The only hard evidence they had against O.J was a wee bit of blood on the gate... and assuming that wasn't planted (and I think we have little evidence to say it was), the extent to which it matched O.J. it could also have matched Jason. Unfortunately, we'll never know because the LAPD is too proud to even consider it.

Heck, give me the blood and unknown prints, a subpoena, 48 hours, and a nerd in a lab and I'll check just to shut people up. What's the big deal?
[Edited 5/22/09 17:07pm]

MuthaFunka said:

MF, in a criminal case, just about any evidence short of an eyewitness account would be legally "circumstantial." And I have to correct myself: Even the blood and footprints in the O.J. case would fit this definition.

And regarding the weight of such evidence...

"Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence" (Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials."

-From West's Encyclopedia of American Law


On what basis do you think state murder cases are exempt from this?

As to whether the police looked at anyone but O.J. -- I dunno. I'm not saying they didn't. But with regard to Jason, don't take my speculation into account -- or that of William Read -- just look at the LAPD's own records: They never tested any of the blood or fingerprints against Jason's, and they never even interviewed him. If they had, and they cleared him, don't you think someone -- from the cops, to Jason, to O.J., to any of the lawyers on either side -- would have said so in the past 15 years?

Lastly, everything you mentioned (that was actually introduced as evidence), save for Nicole being O.J's ex, point to someone, that's for sure. But give me one reason -- just one -- any of it couldn't have fit Jason?

...At this point, I'm thinking you're just enjoying the argument. And, hey, ain't mad at that. But if you can honestly look at all the stuff that SCREAMS "Um... what about this nutcase Jason?" and think it shouldn't even be given the slightest consideration... if only to hush folk up, I got nothing else, bruh.

Lammastide said:

Oh come on. They found OJ's blood at the scene. They didn't find Jason's. They found OJ's shoeprints at the scene. They didn't find Jason's. It was OJ's ex. Not Jason's. OJ fled. Not Jason. OJ wrote the suicide note. Not Jason. So you can't possibly tell me that OJ ONLY had circumstantial evidence against him. You think a judge is gonna give the go-ahead to try and convict on JUST circumstantial evidence? Not even.[/quote]

You can get a murder conviction on just circumstantial evidence so why not?

Then why did they let him try it on?


A mystery I tell ya!

Cinnie said:

the question is, why would they let him try it on wearing a pair of latex gloves?

you would think anyone especially a lawyer would have known they wouldn't fit because of that.

Lammastide said:

But you're claiming that evidence was circumstantial and I'm claiming it's not. It's not that we're debating whether circumstantial evidence can or cannot be used.

MuthaFunka said:

All of it was.

I suspect maybe you think that when I call the evidence circumstantial, I'm implying it was shoddy or second rate. I'm not. I'm using the term in its legal sense, which means that ALL of the evidence -- including the blood and the prints -- inferred O.J. was the culprit rather than irrefutably proved that fact outright, which is what direct evidence does. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is simply law.

Now the glove (which, incidentally, you never mentioned to me) I'm unsure about. I suppose that was the prosecution's only piece of evidence that might be considered direct. (I'd like to hear the opinion of some of the org lawyers/law students on this.) Nevertheless, because of the questionable means by which it was acquired -- namely Fuhrman -- its possible weight in the case shrank to nothing.

Anyway, amid all this, as I've said, the exact same set of evidence -- even the Simpson DNA -- would exist under the scenario that Jason did it. This warrants humoring the possibility. That's all I'm saying.
[Edited 5/23/09 19:02pm]

angel345 said:

Yeah, no one said LAPD crossed all their Ts and dotted all their I's. See, what a lot of people aren't realizing here is the genius that was Johnnie Cochran - he BRILLIANTLY put the LAPD on trial and created REASONABLE DOUBT. The thing is, most police half-ass and get lazy but still have enough evidence to convict; happens all the time. All JC did was point out these "issues" and turned the shit around - BRILLIANT!

Lammastide said:

Circumstantial evidence is different from "direct evidence" and that's what I'm talking about - Direct Evidence, along with corraborating evidence, which what OJ's blood on the scene would be considered. DNA is direct evidence, not circumstantial.

angel345 said:

I may not be the same person I used to be...but my black ass just doesn't SUDDENLY realize this "change" overnight!...Especially after my ex-wife is murdered!

angel345 said:

Naw Darden is alive and kickin'. Dude took a lot of flack from the Black community, which was bullshit because the man was only doing his job. The thing that pissed a lot of Blacks off is when he OPENLY wept at the post-trial press conference. A lot of Blacks saw that as being "Tom-ish" since so many Black women have died at the hands of their spouses and he probab;y never weeped for any of them. I can see that pissing some Blacks off.

angel345 said:

Yeah, or maybe he was so adept at the attack, she/he never had a chance to fight back or attack the killer(s)'s face.

Lammastide said:

Circumstantial evidence is different from "corroborating evidence" and that's what I'm talking about. Then there's "Forensice evidence" which is what OJ's blood on the scene would be considered.
[Edited 5/23/09 19:54pm]

MuthaFunka said:

What's his famous line? "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit".

MuthaFunka said:

Sorry I replied above before your edits. But this edited version is not quite right either. Circumstantial evidence is, by definition, corroborating evidence. It concludes nothing in itself, but rather supports (or corroborates) a notion in combination with other pieces of evidence.

Forensic evidence, which the blood absolutely was, is neither automatically circumstantial nor direct. It depends on the particular case. (See my post above for why the blood in this case would be circumstantial rather than direct.) If, say, fresh gouges in Nicole's arm matched O.J.'s dental pattern that would be an example of direct forensic evidence.
[Edited 5/23/09 20:52pm]

MuthaFunka said:

No written or verbal confession so you still have nothing
[Edited 5/23/09 20:44pm]

On the shoes here's a thought ya'll, maybe Jason had on a pair of OJ'S shoes when he murdered Nicole and Ron?

Abdul said:

Naw, no self-assured dude would be caught in them old-ass "Pops" lofers, dawg.