I'm guessing OJ just wants to avoid any kind of courtroom for the next....well, for the rest of his life.
unless you were there, no one can truly claim either way. so I doubt st peter would ask you something you don't know.
Yeah, it was probably some alien that happened to have the same DNA as OJ. And that's also why he was going to write a book titled "If I did it..." or something like that .
do you know FOR SURE that o.j. killed those people. were you there? that's the only point I'm making. no one saw, responding specifically to that post. so no need for the rolled eyes.
Im glad you took the literal meaning of my statement. Bottom line: There is a high percentage of African Americans who believe OJ should be free no matter the evidence.
Were you there when they cut into the Rockets' game coverage with OJ evading arrest in his white Bronco with a disguise and a plane ticket?
and it always amazes me how upset that non blacks get that one man beat the system that has a history of abusing blacks as long as the history of this country.
I was. I lived at Ocean Park and Cloverfield in Santa Monica at the time. I remember watching the split screen game/chase, and then I remember about twelve helicopters whooshing low over the roof of my apartment. My apartment was about 10 minutes from OJ's old house in Brentwood.
http://members.aol.com/CntrbndMag/oj.html OJ is Innocent The OJ civil trial has ended. A trial which I believe should have never been allowed to proceed at all based upon the results of the original trial. The verdict against him is ridiculous. Time and time again, I am struck by the notion that Mr. Simpson was falsely accused from the very beginning. Over time, and despite very questionable "new" evidence which was presented against him in the civil trial, I still hold the firm (though in no way certain) belief that Mr. Simpson is not only "not guilty" of the crimes of killing his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman on the night of June 12, 1994, but that OJ is completely innocent. I base this firm belief on nothing more than the evidence in the case. Sadly, very few people who have very strong opinions on the case, simply do not know what the true facts of the case are, and how they explicitly point away from Mr. Simpson as the culprit, not towards him. Since the murders, fact and fiction have merged, creating a media-influenced limbo of ignorance and misunderstanding. All the while, an innocent person continues to fight off the footsteps of the approaching mob, fueled by misspelled hatred based on factors beyond a true temporal understanding on the part of any psychologist or sociologist living today. MOTIVE Since the murders, OJ has been painted as a man of two completely contrasting personalities. That of a genial, good-natured sports celebrity and actor, the other as a psychopathic, drug using, wife abusing murderer who was quite out of his mind the night of June 12th. In most matters in life, the truth lies somewhere in between. I tend towards the former view, that OJ was and remains more or less the OJ we "all knew" long before the murders. The fact is, for every witness ever trudged out to harshly condemn him as some kind of monster, there have been and are countless others who (still) have a very strong admiration for him. The only documented case on official police records of wife-abuse, was the famed 1989 incident in which OJ was arrested after a domestic disturbance call to 911. Nowhere in the official documentation of this incident did OJ ever admit to beating or striking Nicole. He has maintained as much even in the civil case. His story about the events of that night have been consistent throughout. That is, that their argument got "out of hand," and physical. Nicole, OJ has insisted, actually struck him several times that night. In any event, to settle the matter, OJ pleaded a "no-contest" to the charges made against him, similar to plea-bargaining. At the time, OJ felt that it was just better to solve the problem quietly and without any undue publicity or prolonged court affairs. Since that 1989 event, OJ had never again "laid a finger" on Nicole. The fact of which is undisputed to this day, even by those who condemn him most. Prior to the murders, most of those who knew him personally, including not only his family and friends, but the Brown family, Kato Kaelin, Faye Resnick and others, thought very highly of him. To all of them, he was a friendly, helpful, intelligent, sincere, and honest human being. It is noteworthy how drastically their recollections about him have negatively changed however, Denise Brown, Nicole’s sister, is actually seen laughing with OJ and kissing him in the friendliest manner only hours before the crime. At the criminal trial, she is seen crying her head off, telling how much of a rotten, crazy, monster OJ "really" was. It goes for many of his "former" friends, including Fay Resnick, Kato, Ron Shipiro, Robert Kardasian, etc. It is like rats deserting a sinking ship. Given the vicious and barbaric nature of the crime itself, and knowing OJ's history of basically normal behavior, there seems nothing in his personality that would point to his capacity or desire to commit such brutality. Despite second hand, foggy memories from former friends about the "dark and depressing" mood OJ was in on that night, an actual video tape taken outside the auditorium where his daughter's dance recital took place early that evening, show OJ in a relaxed, calm, good-natured mood. It was very amusing to me that when this video was presented by the defense in the criminal trial to refute the testimony of Denise Brown and others of some ghastly, brooding behavior on the part of OJ that day, the prosecution's argument was basically, "What are you gonna believe, all of these former friends of OJ's, or your own eyes?" Later, the prosecution looked like fools indeed as they tried to recover from their "go ahead, try on the gloves" disaster. They asked the jury not to trust their own eyes that the gloves didn't fit. Instead bringing on a host of biased, paid "expert" witnesses, who basically tried to tell the jury that what they had seen, they had not seen. BUT I DIGRESS Kato, whose own story of events on June 12th, seems to change with the direction of the wind, said that OJ exhibited no real unusual behavior before or after the murders. Both of them casually went to a McDonalds and ate hamburgers, and OJ seemed, well, like OJ. According to Kato's original testimony and recollections, OJ was not in any kind of dark, jealous mood that night. OJ in fact, seemed more concerned with his golf game and his long-planned trip to Chicago later that evening that with any unresolved issues with his ex-wife. There was also no evidence or testimony whatsoever about any drug use that night by OJ, and blood tests taken the next day proved that. Whether the same can be said about Kato is another matter, but unfortunately his blood was never tested. OJ's behavior after the murders (if they had indeed occurred by 11:00 PM, which is open for debate also), according to Kato and the limo driver, also did not seem odd or dark or unusual in any way. Those people OJ met at the airport, on the plane, and at the Chicago hotel upon arrival, also noticed nothing unusual about his behavior. The fact is, his behavior before and after the murders, suggests no involvement on his part. Could someone who had just horribly butchered two people act in such a normal, casual manner? Signing autographs! After leaving the bloody mother of his own two children right where they would undoubtedly find her in the morning? This makes no sense, and there is nothing in OJ's demeanor either on June 12th, or previously in his life, that would suggest such a psychopathic motive for the crime. We are left with a picture of a basically normal human being, going to get a hamburger, then dressing up (in expensive shoes, no less) to go butcher the mother of his kids. Afterwards, returning for a record-breaking cleanup and disposal of all the most crucial evidence. Evidence that must have been covered with blood. Sorry, no, I ain't buying. OJ's behavior upon being notified of Nicole's death also seems quite normal. The prosecution in the criminal case, as have the plaintiffs in this new civil case, have questioned down to the smallest detail, OJ's reaction upon being told about his ex-wife's murder. With the famous "slow-speed Bronco chase" a few days later, they posit that a truly innocent person would not behave as OJ has. However, this case does not just deal with three people, one still alive, and two dead. It deals with a host of other issues, including the very personalities involved, most important, that of OJ's. How individuals react to the same events, always vary greatly. To me, there is nothing really unusual about OJ's behavior upon his hearing of Nicole's death. What I would ask is, if he did indeed commit the crimes, why did he immediately fly back to L.A.? Why wasn't he on the next 747 to Peru or something? The assertion that the Bronco chase somehow clearly paints OJ's "consciousness of guilt," is completely ridiculous. Whether or not, as he has stated, OJ was "in mourning" over the death of Nicole, and suicidal. My interpretation of his behavior seems crystal clear. Here was a rich person, accustomed to the best in life, about to be thrown in some rotten, smelly prison for the rest of his life (if not executed) for something he did not do. Wouldn't anyone be quite depressed and not thinking strait in such a situation also? Besides of which, if OJ had really wanted to escape, he would not take a white Ford Bronco down an L.A. freeway at rush hour. He would not have gone 30 miles an hour. OPPORTUNITY Of all the tricky elements that make up this case, none pose a greater challenge to a truly objective, rational person than the question of time and opportunity on the night of June 12th. Any careful study of the timeline of events of that night must yield a massive amount of more that reasonable doubt. It is interesting that the plaintiffs in the civil trial completely revamped and revised their own theory of the timeline from that of the prosecution in the criminal trial. Yet, neither timeline really works. Both timeline theories basically accept the fact that the murders took place somewhere between the hours of 9:55 and 10:55 PM. The first time is the earliest possible arrival at the Bundy location (the crime scene) of Ron Goldman. Independent and verifiable sources have Ron leaving the restaurant no earlier than that, although making the 9:55 time his earliest arrival at Bundy, leaves him only 5 minutes to drive from work to his home, change his clothing, then drive to Bundy. His arrival at Bundy is probably later. Likewise, the 10:55 time must be accepted as fact for similar reasons. This is about the time OJ is first seen by Alan Park, the Iimo driver, and is also the time Nicole's wandering, wailing dog is found by neighbors. A dog whose paws and coat are bloody. We are left with an hour at most for the murder timeline. An hour? Plenty of time for OJ to commit the crime, right? Wrong, for if one carefully examines all the evidence and testimony in the case, creating a "timeline of events" that night, OJ is either Superman himself, or he could not have had the time to do it. Several witnesses testified they were in the Bundy crime area at around 10:30, and saw and heard nothing unusual. Robert Heidstra, a neighbor of Nicole's said he heard voices arguing (one man screaming, "Hey, hey, hey!) and a dog barking furiously around 10:40. Was he an auditory "witness" to the crime? Probably so. However, if the crime did happen at this time, and the evidence strongly suggests it did, it's virtually impossible for OJ to have been the killer. Now, it is possible for him to have done the deed and flew like Superman back to his Rockingham estate by 10:55 for the Iimo driver to have seen him, but on close inspection, this just does not add up. The most glaring problem with this scenario is not only OJ's ability in less than 15 minutes to get back to Rockingham without being seen, get rid of all pertinent pieces of evidence (weapon, bloody clothes, shoes, etc.), shower, and change his clothes, but the Kato Kaelin factor. For Kato heard the loud bumps behind his guest house at or near 10:40. He was pretty sure of this time, as was Heidstra earlier. Yet, OJ cannot possibly be in two places at the same time (he could I guess, but then I would have to think Rod Serling was somehow involved). If he is committing the murders at Bundy, miles away from Rockingham, then who exactly is "crashing into" Kato's back wall? Both prosecutors and plaintiffs argue that OJ and OJ alone was the sole killer, and yet, when the timeline evidence is laid out piece by piece from known facts (such as phone calls made, arrival and departure times of participants, and several witnesses), OJ could not have possibly done it. Was this a premeditated, carefully planned murder, or one of sudden rage and passion? If it were indeed planned (and the timeline demands virtually perfect, down-to-the-second planning), there is no evidence in OJ's recent past to suggest as much. Nor is there any evidence in his behavior, either that night, or for a period of weeks beforehand. If it were an event precipitated out of sudden rage and passion, how could anyone have pulled off such a feat in so little time? The answer is, neither scenario works, and both the prosecutors and plaintiffs know that. In both trials, they have carefully laid out some sort of "open theory" of what really happened. It may have been planned. It may have been passion. Both the criminal prosecutors and the civil plaintiffs fail miserably to prove their theories, if they stick to their steadfast presumption that OJ and OJ alone committed the crimes. The fact is however, neither theory works, if you assume OJ acted alone. From the very beginning of the criminal trial, several members of the L.A. District attorney's office, thought the case against OJ was weak, especially when it concerned OJ's actual ability to kill in the only time framework possible, the space of a few minutes. Anyone who knows the whole political nature of the D.A.'s office in Los Angeles however, especially following the disastrous (from a political and public relations point of view) Rodney King and Menendez brothers trials, could tell you that once their mind was made up that OJ was the lone killer, nothing was going to stop them from "trying to make their case." In fact, OJ was the only suspect ever considered from the very beginning, from the very first arrival of the LAPD (and Mark Fuhrman especially) at Bundy. My own theory is that it escalated from that point on to the point that the LAPD and the D.A.'s office would do anything to make their "mountain of evidence" against OJ stick. What about that so-called "mountain of evidence?" On close scrutiny, does it indeed become a case of putting the cart before the horse? Especially one of "making a molehill into a mountain?" EVIDENCE What about those infamous gloves? Given Mark Fuhrman's racism, his arrival at the crime scene (a place he had been before), his leading of the other detectives to OJ's Rockingham estate, his discovery alone in the dark of the bloody glove behind Kato's room (after talking to Kato, mind you), his discovery alone of blood on the Bronco, and his subsequent pleading of the fifth, it's beyond my imagination how anyone in their right mind would not have a lot of suspicion about this man's actions that night. He told Laura McKinney on the screenplay tapes (among his "N-word" references) that he was the case. That without him, the state didn't even have a case. How true, the glove he "found" at Rockingham, alone, in the dark, was a match for the other one found at the Bundy crime scene, true. The fact is, he had been alone there also, with plenty of time to take one of the gloves back to Rockingham and implicate OJ. The glove was "found" sitting alone without any disturbance around it, without any blood around it, without anything near it that would point to it being accidentally lost there during a violent collision with the wall. There were even intricate spider webs nearby, which were undisturbed. Later it was discovered that laying near the glove was a small blue plastic bag, the kind Mark Fuhrman and other LAPD detectives carried around to store (plant) evidence. Scientific tests on the glove done later, taking into account the precise weather on the night of June 12th, clearly show that at the time Fuhrman supposedly found the glove, a glove which was still wet with blood, it actually should've already dried. How was it possibly still wet unless it was "kept" inside some preserving container. A blue baggie? In that same vein, it was Mark Fuhrman that "found" blood on the bronco driver's side door, leading the other detectives over to it. It was Mark Fuhrman who told the detectives about seeing blood smears inside the bronco before even entering it, yet those inside locations would later be proven to be impossible to see from outside the vehicle. It was Mark Fuhrman who was tracking through the blood-soaked Bundy crime scene (along with Vanatter and Lang) just minutes before arriving at OJ's home and Bronco, a home and Bronco which would later show evidence of Ron and Nicole's blood. It wasn't possible for the Rockingham area to be suddenly corrupted as a clean evidence location? Especially if it is intentionally corrupted. Duh, Mark Fuhrman is not the sole problem with the blood evidence however, wherever it was found. It is essential to note that all blood evidence in this case, I repeat ALL OF IT, was found in just three locations; at Bundy, at Rockingham, and in the Bronco. The LAPD and FBI painstakingly searched the route between Bundy and Rockingham, the areas surrounding both places for miles, the sewers of L.A., the limo, LAX airport, inside the plane, at the Chicago airport, for miles surrounding the hotel OJ was staying at in Chicago, miles of area around that hotel, inside the hotel room, etcetera. NOTHING! There is blood evidence found in only three locations. It doesn't take much of a brain to figure out how untrustful and suspicious any evidence is going to be in a case where a bloody crime scene is first visited by the investigators, who proceed directly to their prime suspect's place of residence. Jesus, it would be suspicious if there weren't any crime scene related blood evidence at OJ's estate. What of the validity of the blood evidence itself? One of the biggest misconceptions about "OJ's blood" being found at Bundy is that in truth, his "blood" was not found there at all. His "DNA" was found there. It was found in a place where he had visited dozens, if not hundreds of times, where his kids (who had matching DNA profiles) played, and some of it contained EDTA, the preservative put in LAPD blood sample test tubes. Some of this "blood" was found weeks later, weeks after the whole area had been washed down. Some of this "blood" didn't even show up on police photographs of the crime scene taken that night. Finally, every single supposed drop of "OJ's blood" found at Bundy had almost no DNA in it. Hmmmmmmm, add to all of this the fact that lead detective Phillip Vanatter broke all police procedures by actually taking OJ's blood sample to Bundy and to Rockingham (and perhaps the Bronco also, which was in police custody). Later, it was discovered that he also visited the morgue itself where he gathered "samples" of Nicole and Ron's blood, again taking same to Bundy and Rockingham. Add to this the numerous unexplained anomalies of each and every evidence sample, mysterious appearing and disappearing blood, highly suspect and contaminated lab procedures, plus a host of other issues, and little by little, the trail leads away from OJ, not to him. This is a "mountain of evidence?" No. It is garbage in, and garbage out. CLOSING THOUGHTS Though I don't have the space or time here, not all of the physical evidence in fact, cannot be trusted. In fact, every single piece of it is not beyond at least a reasonable doubt, if not something much more sinister. Both in the hearts and souls of those who investigated and prosecuted this case, as well as us, the general public, who have reacted to it in the ways we have. I have my own reasonable doubts about Simpson's innocence, given what the actual facts and evidence against him strongly suggests, and doesn't suggest, I see no justification for most people's vicious anti-OJ thoughts and feelings.
from what I remember of the coverage, the timeline was a big hinderance to the prosecution. considering o.j. probably never murdered anyone before it is even more astonishing if he is guilty that he was able to get himself clean, dispose of evidence and collect himself to act normal on his flight.
The jury system really helped him out there. He would be convicted in any non jury court system in the world. It is not that an African American beat the sytem that made people mad, it is the fact that money always beat the system that pisses people off. (Ok, maybe not alwasy but close enough).
How do you explain all the minority customers being served at the time or the picture of the owner and O.J. that he tossed out?
"beat the system"? I am not denying the fact that black people have been subjected to an unbelievable amount of injustice in history, but that does not make it right to cheer the fact that they let an obvious murderer go just because he is black. I guess he got off at least as much because he is rich as much as he got off because he is black, but no matter the color of his skin, it was a severe failure of the jury to let an obvious murderer go. If he had been a Native American, that group of people had to endure a lot in history as well, but that still wouldn't make it right to let a Native American go who brutally murdered two people. The whole idea of "this person accidentally happens to have the same skin color as I do, so I will cheer for him to get off even though it is pretty evident he is a murderer" really puzzles me. When we watched the jury's decision being announced at UH Law Center, I couldn't believe that almost all black students (some of whom I knew were very bright) watching were cheering the decision while everyone else was watching in disbelief. It didn't make me think less of the black students (even though I could absolutely not agree with them cheering on a murderer), but that was the moment when I as a foreigner realized that there was still an incredibly long way to go in race relations in the USA and that the wounds from the past were far from being healed. Come on, pgabriel, you are an intelligent person, you know he did it. One doesn't need to have been there to know he did it. The whole trial was a complete joke.
