MuthaFunka said:

I remember Geraldo Rivera bragging at the time that he had a pair... like someone was supposed to be impressed.

Lammastide said:

Geraldo used to always try and high-sign and shit.

Abdul said:

Lammastide said:

You're correct. I'd only add that the defense's ability to successfully impeach the integrity of the evidence and the witnesses presenting it did irreparable damage to the prosecution's case.

From what I recall of the way it went down they never seriously investigated or even considered any other suspects. They pretty much assumed OJ did it and figured they'd help the case along with a bit of tampering. If they had left well enough alone they would have had a better chance of getting a conviction.

babynoz said:

Well...they "assumed" because the evidence supported their assumption. If ONLY OJ's DNA was found there...why would they look elsewhere?

MuthaFunka said:

Because in the initial investigation DNA was not part of the evidence. Even though the spouse or ex spouse is usually the first and most obvious suspect, in the early stages of an investigation you normally check out other suspects to eliminate them even when you think you have the right guy. It's just good detective work.

Shoddy detective work and amateurish prosecution left the door wide open for Cochran and he walked right in blew 'em away.

babynoz said:

No, blood (DNA) was always at the forefront of the investigation after the crime scene had been tended to. Now, had they found Jason's blood - THEN I can roll with this whole Jason theory (of course), but since that was never the case, I don't see why he'd be a suspect. Plus, how do ANY of us know if the cops NEVER considered Jason? Anybody have any proof on that?

MuthaFunka said:

I'm going from memory and what Dear wrote in his book which hasn't been disputed by anyone involved in the case. You really should read it before dismissing his scenario.

babynoz said:

And I'm going off the actual investigation that was done, and DNA was at the forefront of the case. I have to dismiss this dude simply because there was no DNA or proof that Jason was involved. I can't go off theories or hunches. If the author can show PROOF that Jason did it, then I'm there. Until then, I can't go out like that.

Is it not possible for O.J. guilty and the cops to have planted some evidence?

If this was the case would it be right to convict someone with manufactured/corrupt evidence.


I personally believe he was there when it went down. and maybe more than likely even helped. But I have a hard time believing he did all this on his own had time to go home , clean up, go to chicago and just leave drops of blood here and there. it's just highly unlikely.

daingermouz2020 said:

That's why I've mentioned that a certain witness testified about seeing two perps dressed in black at her residence. Another witness heard the dog barking non-stop. The forensic expert Lee testified that from the looks of the footprints and crime scene, there had to been two perps involved. Kato, his houseguest testified that he heard some noise around 11:00 pm, but didn't say it was OJ. He was considered a key witness in the trial. Therefore, the court is wondering how can he be at two places at one time, and had to prove that he was at the crime scene. The time of death was another issue, too.
[Edited 5/24/09 4:19am]

One thing that is puzzling. If there was blood in his Bronco, he wouldn't be allowed to drive evidence around like that. The police would be holding it.

MuthaFunka said:

The same flawed investigation that allowed him to be aquitted? Allrighty then,

DNA evidence was at the forefront of the trial itself but not the initial investigation simply because it can take days and even weeks to get the results of DNA testing.

I don't know how one forms an opinion of a book they haven't read but have it your way.

daingermouz2020 said:

It's entirely possible that he was guilty or at least involved in some way. The problem is that the defense was able to show how the evidence was tainted and by whom, hence a verdict of aquittal.

I agree that OJ was probably at the scene at some point and should have been convicted according to his level of involvement in the crime.

angel345 said:

it was a different vehicle.



link

babynoz said:

You're not giving JC much credit for making the SMALL missteps look like HUGE missteps. Without Cochran, OJ burns. Trust and believe. That was probably the single greatest defense display ever, with all that mounting evidence against him and he engineered an acquittal? Genius.

And it's a book of theory. That's it. If he had some SOLID EVIDENCE, the book would be taken more seriously by those that deal in facts and not "possible scenarios" that they then say "So therefore, that's why Jason did it/is a suspect". I go on proof, not theories. If you can find anything in that book that places Jason or his DNA/prints at the scene, then we're good to go. But that won't happen, will it?

MuthaFunka said:

Pardon me, I thought I did...



Again, I don't know how one can conclude what proof or facts may or may not be contained in a book they haven't read. All you gotta do is read and judge for yourself but that won't happen will it?

Have it your way bro...no worries.

babynoz said:[quote]

MuthaFunka said:

Naw, you don't understand JUST how BOMB JC was to blow that OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AGAINST OJ away and win that case. Just take a look at Robert Kardashian's face - AND THAT TELLS IT ALL!

And again, how come the case wasn't re-opened when this author dropped his book? Wouldn't you think the case would be re-opened if he had something CREDIBLE to support his theory? . Until then, it's fiction. Simple as that.

emm said:

Honestly, it didn't dawn on me at the time. I forgot the speed chase in Al Cowlings Bronco.

MuthaFunka said:

Though we have our slight differences, I would have to agree with Mutha on this one. Without Cochran's defense, OJ would be toast. He was like his get out of jail free card, so to speak. LAPD messed up, big time.

angel345 said:

MuthaFunka said:

In a word, nope.

I mean, not to be funny, but look at you: You've gone eight pages defending against a solid theory that you haven't even read about people to whom you presumably have no connection. Why on earth would the California Attorney General's office after spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money and 15 years of fallout from one of the most racially divisive cases in U.S. history risk public embarrassment... again? Human pride just doesn't work that way.

I will agree on one thing: O.J. should be putting flowers on Johnny Cochran's grave daily.

Lammastide said:

But hold up, you have people here who are pro this jason theory who ADMITTED they haven't read it or read ALL of dude's book - including you. So again, it's JUST theory and calling it a "solid" theory is purely opinion.

And to say an attorney wouldn't reopen this if it had CREDIBLE evidence that would actually find the REAL KILLER doesn't hold any weight. Any attorney worth his/her salt would find this the DREAM JOB to their career.

angel345 said:

Can you read? For the third time, JOHNNY COCRAN BLEW THE PROSECUTION AWAY and I never said he didn't.

Did you get it that time? Sheesh!

babynoz said:

Is that in reference to me or Mutha?

MuthaFunka said:

No worries bro...once you start acting like Hiin I won't trouble you with any further conversation.

babynoz said:

Aw you ain't gonna go out like THAT are you? How weaksauce is THAT?

But cool, believe Jason did it all you want. I've seen worse conspiracy theories, especially here at the Org.

MuthaFunka said:

Check out my post #177. I've explicitly said I'm not convinced O.J. didn't do it, or that Jason did. And dude's book alone wouldn't (and shouldn't) make me convinced. I'd need to be in a jury box and hear stuff laid out and argued piece by piece. I've only argued the info presented -- six meticulous year's worth -- builds a theory at least plausible enough to look into... I've even offered to pay for the simple lab tests my darned self! You won't even give it that! (I'm starting to think you're dating someone on the LAPD. )

And, yeah, any attorney worth his/her salt would find it a dream job to scope out new information on this case and find that someone else is out there ... if their office wasn't the same one that presided expensively and incompetently over the initial case! Maybe 100 years from now, when we're all dead, someone will take on the case again... and whether they find out Jason Voorhees Simpson murdered those folk or not, they'll deserve the respect of the people for simply looking into it. There's zero to lose and a LOT to gain.

Good debate. I'm all Simpsoned out now.

Lammastide said:

And naw, not dating any chicks from LAPD but I wouldn't mind being cuffed to a bedpost every now and then.

But yeah, I feel you, and all I'm sayin' is that if it WERE something to the author's "findings" you can best believe SOMEBODY would be all over it.

But good runnin' with ya on this, dawg - as always!

OJ Simpson Trial????? Never heard about it.