The O.J. Posts — Part Three: The Timeline
[This is Part Three of a series of posts on the O.J. Simpson trial. Part One is here; Part Two is here.]
Stop. Before you go any further, I want you to click on the word “Comments” below. Don’t look at any other comments. Now, tell me how long it takes to drive from the site of Nicole Simpson’s Bundy condo to the site of O.J.’s Rockingham mansion.
I’m talking especially to those of you who believe O.J. didn’t do it. And I’m talking especially to those of you who watched large parts (or all) of the trial.
Once you’ve left your answer, you can hit the “back” button, or simply scroll up to read the rest of this post. Don’t worry, we’ll wait. It’ll take you only a second.
To the O.J. jury, a critical factor in coming to a not guilty verdict within a few short hours appeared to be the timeline. That was one of the major issues argued by the defense, and was the subject of the one bit of readback they had: of limo driver Allan Park’s testimony. According to the defense, O.J. simply didn’t have the time to get back to his house from Nicole’s condo, get cleaned up, and be ready for the limo driver to pick him up.
Nonsense.
Not many people realize this, but the drive from Nicole’s condo (the crime scene) to O.J.’s house took only five minutes. I’ve done it many times, and it always took five minutes, give or take 30 seconds or so.
Back in the day, when visitors came to town, we used to give them our own personal “O.J. tour.” We’d go eat at Mezzaluna, where Ron Goldman worked, and where Nicole ate her last meal. We’d drive to Nicole’s Bundy condo, park, and walk up the walkway towards the tiny area where Nicole and Ron took their last breaths.
Then we’d drive to O.J.’s house — just like O.J. himself did after butchering Nicole and Ron. We usually did the drive in under five minutes. It never took us more than five and a half minutes. We once did it in under four and a half minutes. We didn’t even try to drive fast.
It just doesn’t take that long to get from Bundy to Rockingham. You can slash a woman’s throat, stab a guy to death, hop in your Bronco and jet back to Rockingham in five minutes, get rid of the bloody clothing around the corner, hop the fence near Kato’s guest house, lose the bloody glove, and shower up — all in no time flat. It’s easily done. O.J. had plenty of time.
Plenty.
Did the jury understand this? I doubt it.
Recall that the jury visited the crime scene and O.J.’s house on the same day. People have previously discussed this as a huge coup for the defense, because they managed to portray O.J. as a good family man. Down came the pictures of scantily clad women. Up went the pictures of O.J.’s mom.
The visit to the crime scenes was a huge media event. Traffic was snarled for miles in both directions. Helicopters flew overhead. A huge media contingent followed the caravan.
I can’t for the life of me imagine that the jury traveled from Nicole’s to O.J.’s house in anything like five minutes. It wouldn’t surprise me if it took 30 minutes or more.
If the jury thought it took a considerable period of time to travel from Nicole’s to O.J.’s, it’s no wonder they found themselves convinced by the timeline argument.
I once asked Bill Hodgman about this. He said that the jury had been shown a video of (if memory serves) Detective Vannatter driving between Nicole’s and O.J.’s in approximately five minutes.
Vannatter — the guy Johnnie Cochran branded as one of the Twin Devils of Deception.
It’s possible that the jury, consciously or subconsciously, discounted this video as being completely inconsistent with their own perceptions. “It took us 35 minutes to get from one place to the other, and Vanatter claimed he could do it in five. Just another lie told by the LAPD.”
The careful reader will note that there is plenty of speculation involved in all of this. I don’t know how long it took the jurors to get from Nicole’s to O.J.’s. I don’t know if they discussed this point, or it it weighed on their subconscious minds. I don’t know if this issue had anything to do with the verdict at all.
But I’d love to get a hold of one of the jurors today and ask him or her: how long do you think it took O.J. to drive from Bundy to Rockingham? I think the answer would surprise you.
Well, er, I clicked on the “Comments” and it opened the post, so I guess I’m excused from guessing 🙂
Jimmy (df2168) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:07 amIt opens the post, but should take you directly down to where you can leave a comment. That’s why I said you could simply scroll up once you’ve left your comment.
Patterico (88ee30) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:09 amUm, I’m thinking it was 10 to 15 minutes maximum.
Christi (373a11) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:16 amabout 5 minutes. is it light traffic on sunset blvd., or rush hour, and how much do you care about not getting a ticket? as a native of pacific palisades, i’ve driven on this stretch many times.
assistant devil's advocate (14009e) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:18 amUh what am I supposed to do here? I have no clue. I am from NorCal after all.
Joel B. (796dd3) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:28 am10 – 15 minutes
worker (22c47f) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:33 amada,
If I recall, it’s about 10:30 p.m. on a Saturday night. We’ve done the drive at exactly that time.
Patterico (88ee30) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:37 amBack in the day, when visitors came to town, we used to give them our own personal “O.J. tour.” We’d go eat at Mezzaluna, where Ron Goldman worked, and where Nicole ate her last meal. We’d drive to Nicole’s Bundy condo, park, and walk up the walkway towards the tiny area where Nicole and Ron took their last breaths.
Then we’d drive to O.J.’s house
Dude, that’s like, kind of creepy. What’d y’all do on Christmas?
Army Lawyer (498217) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:40 amTo the jury, the only relevant fact in the case was that the defendant was OJ Simpson. Nothing else mattered, not the timeline, not the blood analysis, not the physical evidence, not the eye wittiness testimony, not even Nicole’s written prediction OJ would not only kill her, but also get away with it.
Black Jack (5e3718) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:44 amNo creepier than my uncle, the first time I visited Dallas as an adult, giving me the ‘JFK’ tour.
[Hey, the JFK tour is cool! — P]
aphrael (3bacf3) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:44 amPatterico: Not for the first comment. Next time, leave one yourself 🙂
[Ah. Gotcha. Sorry. — P]
Jimmy (df2168) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:47 ami’ve done it at exactly that time too and it’s under five minutes, even with checking out chicks in other cars and worrying about the motorcycle cops with radar guns enforcing the 35 mph limit.
assistant devil's advocate (14009e) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:58 ami don’t know what paul revere jr. high school (at the bottom of the canyon where rockingham drive is on top) is like now, but in the 1960’s when i was there, it sucked bigtime!
You just don’t understand! O J Simpson won the Heisman trophy and rushed for over 2,000 yards in a single NFL season. You’ve got to give a guy like that a break.
Dana (71415b) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:07 amI’d guess 15 minutes, but wouldn’t want to bet anything on it.
Joel Rosenberg (b6087d) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:28 am5 minutes
Pablo (efa871) — 8/22/2006 @ 11:11 am15 minutes?
AughtSix (f1589d) — 8/22/2006 @ 11:16 amNobody gets it. It takes a black man thirty minutes because we all know he gets busted for DWB at least twice on his journey. Whites do it in four minutes,
Howard Veit (28df94) — 8/22/2006 @ 11:33 amAsians sneak around the back way and make it in five and one half, Jews have to rent a limo so once inside it they make it in three, and lawyers have to stop and file at least one class action suit on the way over so it takes them a day and a half.
I don’t recall now, but I think it was five or six minutes.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/22/2006 @ 11:36 amOK. I was right. So what does that do to your argument, Pat?
You write, “get rid of the bloody clothing around the corner”, and yet no one found those bloody clothes. Why do you suppose that is? Were the police inept? Or where the clothes not there? Or did OJ call someone (without leaving a phone record) and have the clothes disposed of?
You’ve got two huge problems you have to overcome – where are the bloody clothes and why wasn’t the Bronco covered in blood?
Solve those and you may convince me – and the jury that some many racist comments are made about.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/22/2006 @ 11:43 amPatterico, maybe we should agree on the time elapsed?
IIRC, the prosecution argued it was forty minutes, but that seemed strained to me. OJ went to McDonalds with whats-his-name and returned to the house. IIRC, thirty minutes seems about the most time you would have had, but let’s give the prosecution a break and say it’s forty.
Deduct ten minutes for drive time (both directions), and you have thirty minutes to commit the murders and dispose of the evidence. Disposing of the evidence would take at least five minutes, right? Oh, and OJ has to take a shower and get dressed, ready to travel to the airport. Will you give him ten minutes for that? Oh, and he has to clean up the Bronco, which would have been covered in blood. Would you give him five minutes for that? But he has to do it before the limo driver arrives…..
So now you’re down to a 10 minute window within which both Ron and Nicole have to appear outside the condo and be killed – but Ron has to die first, then Nicole.
Are you starting to see the difficulty with the timeline? If it was thirty minutes (which I consider more likely), there’s no time at all left to kill them. But to run over to the condo after getting a panicked call from his son, see the devastation and then run home to get ready for the flight – yup – no problem with that timeline. Then he’s got the entire flight to figure out what to do, if anything.
Did I mention he took a cell phone call from his son during the early part of that time frame? Wonder what that was about?
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/22/2006 @ 11:52 amOh, and he has to clean up the Bronco, which would have been covered in blood.
It would have?
You keep repeating this as if it is fact yet present no indication as to why.
I note you ran from this question in the other thread…
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/22/2006 @ 12:04 pmThough it has been 10 years since the trial, I still remembered it was only 5 minutes.
Kat (0545e8) — 8/22/2006 @ 12:37 pmOJ=guilty as sin
8 minutes.
X_LA_Native (4f15ca) — 8/22/2006 @ 12:43 pmHas anyone in this thread ever killed someone with a knife? (Any military guys here – especially special forces types?) Anyone ever worked a crime scene where a murder was committed with a knife?
Ace, I’m mystified by your “ran from it” comment. Perhaps I missed the question.
There would have been blood all over the murderer – pants, shirt, underwear, socks, shoes, hands, face, arms, everywhere. You don’t cut both carotid arteries without having tons of blood spewing everywhere. Goldman was stabbed in the neck, cutting open his jugular vein and in the chest, cutting open his aorta. Both cuts would have produced copious amounts of blood before he died.
How do you explain the absence of blood in the Bronco? Think about it. If OJ committed the murders, he was covered in blood from head to toe. He then gets in the Bronco and rushes back to his house. Yet a microscopic amount of blood was found in the Bronco. Where did all the rest of the blood go?
If you’re a juror, you want the answer to that question. The prosecution never explained it. Did OJ clean up the car? Then more time is needed on the timeline. Evidence of cleaning fluids would have been found. It simply doesn’t add up.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/22/2006 @ 12:50 pmA well planned crime would have eleminated all of the evidence the nuts are still looking for. No problem, a stupid jury turned him loose, so he’s free to keep comitting more crimes, so far just no more double murders that we know of.
Scrapiron (9f37aa) — 8/22/2006 @ 1:04 pmAnd yes I have worked a murder (stabbing), the worst a woman stabbed over 60 times (throat slit) with several knife blades broken off in her. Yes there was lots of blood, but believe it or not the murderer returned to the scene within minutes and was only arrested because someone (neighbor)knew him and knew he did it. The few drops of blood he still had on him did not contribute to him being reconized and arrested.
15-20 minutes.
Arthur (c570e0) — 8/22/2006 @ 1:08 pm(and I’m in the group that thinks he did it)
Goldman was stabbed in the neck, cutting open his jugular vein and in the chest, cutting open his aorta. Both cuts would have produced copious amounts of blood before he died.
Ok.
Well then does that mean it all would have splattered on OJ? No.
Further, if blood were on his clothes, that doesn’t mean it would transfer in large quantities to the bronco unless it was on his back (pressing against the seat) or the back of his legs.
That said, you would have to infer his shoes were soaked in it and they would likely transfer more to the vehicle.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/22/2006 @ 1:11 pmAntimedia wrote:
Patterico wrote:
*Dramatic music* GASP! 😉
Something you ain’t sharing there Patrick?
Army Lawyer (498217) — 8/22/2006 @ 1:21 pmScrapiron writes
This wasn’t a well-planned crime. It was a crime of passion. At least that’s what the prosecution argued. Were they wrong?
Was he wearing the same clothes he committed the murder in? Did he clean up before returning? Was it a crime of passion? Or a well-planned murder as you mentioned?
Ace writes
How do you face someone, stab them repeatedly (which implies very close contact – inches) and not get any blood on you?
Regardless of where the blood is, he has to grab the outside handle to open the door, touch the gearshift and the steering wheel, grab the door to close it, handle the keys, press the foot pedals with the Bruno Maglis which were at the crime scene and stepped in the blood (according to the prosecution), put the second bloody glove somewhere (in his lap?) and do all this without getting any blood on the car.
Yet only microsoopic traces of blood were found. Sounds like a miracle. Or the wrong guy.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/22/2006 @ 1:23 pmI can think of a couple of scenarios where he wouldn’t get much blood in the Bronco. One would be realizing what he did, grabbing a garbage bag, stripping down and putting his clothes in it before he got into the Bronco, and then dumping them in some out of the way, never searched dumpster on the way home. That does add time, and it adds an element of at least after the fact planning. Other scenarios could be contrived.
Of course, since Mr Simpson is hot on the trail of the Real Killers, we’ll know the whole story eventually.
Dana (a90377) — 8/22/2006 @ 1:38 pmHow do you face someone, stab them repeatedly (which implies very close contact – inches) and not get any blood on you?
I didn’t say any, I said all.
He could have at least had the foresight to wear a sweatshirt and taken it off before getting into the Bronco.
Further, I believe he slit his wife’s throat from behind.
The Ace (8154cd) — 8/22/2006 @ 1:42 pmDana writes
Now he has to remember to bring a garbage bag (forget the crime of passion scenario) and he has to drive home in the Bronco naked (not too likely.) And as you point out, it increases the time required, making the timeline even more strained, because he has to take time to shed the clothes and find a dumpster to put them in before returning to his house – naked.
[It wasn’t a crime of passion. He took a knife there. And he easily could have been wearing a jumpsuit and shed that. — P]
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/22/2006 @ 1:42 pmOK, let’s try a different approach. OJ and Kato went to McDonalds for a burger about 9:30 or 9:45 IIRC. The limo was supposed to pick up OJ at 10:45 – 11PM for his flight.
So, OJ goes for a burger, goes home, looks at his watch, has about an hour to get ready for the limo pickup, so he decides, “Hey, I think I’ll run over to Nicole’s house and kill her. Let’s see….I’m going to need a knife, a jumpsuit to protect me from the blood, a bag to throw it in, something to clean my hands and face with that I can throw away, now where did I leave that knife??????”
But he forgot to remove his Bruno Magli shoes, so he had to throw them away too. Oh, and just for good measure, after all this meticulous planning, he left a bloody sock on the floor in his bedroom, where the police were sure to find it. And he killed her because he was in a jealous rage.
Does that make sense to you?
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/22/2006 @ 2:16 pmI thought that the two sites were in walking distance of each other. 5-8 minutes.
Pat Patterson (5b3946) — 8/22/2006 @ 2:16 pm30 minutes
rev (af51a4) — 8/22/2006 @ 2:51 pmThis sounds like a case for Horatio. He solves the Miami murders fairly easily so this one shouldn’t be so tough.
“What if, what if, what if…?”
What if Big Bird came and shit on your head?
This case boils down to who had the best lawyer. O.J. had tons of money to spend on his defense. Cochran, Shapiro and Bailey were all the non-space saga equivalent of the Emporer’s apprentice- except he made an exception to the “one master, one apprentice” rule.
It seems like Divine Justice, Kharma, or whatever your religion calls it, always gets its man- or woman in the case of Jon Benet Ramsey’s mother.
The jackhole cops in charge of the crime scene, the incompetent prosectuting attorneys and the elegant wordsmithing of the defense all worked against putting The Juice behind bars.
Frankly, I could care less about timelines, eyewitnesses and such because now they are all irrelevant. Simpson got off and two people are dead and this case will forever go down in the annuls of ‘who-done-it?’- right above Jimmy Hoffa and just below Jack the Ripper.
Trickish Knave (eb59d4) — 8/22/2006 @ 2:59 pmI drove the route once, and as I recall, I made the trip in nine minutes.
James Fulton (97fab7) — 8/22/2006 @ 3:30 pmI’d guess 10 to 12 minutes
Ken Hahn (02bc28) — 8/22/2006 @ 3:49 pmFascinating….
Patterico is re-examining the OJ case, e.g., here. My impression at the time, from reading the newspapers, was this: He probably did it; There was a reasonable doubt; The police and prosecutors shared this doubt. So… how did I come up with (2), and e…
Silicon Valley Redneck (72c8fd) — 8/22/2006 @ 3:55 pmI think it was like 7 minutes if I remember the testimony and the John and Ken commentary correctly.
chad (719bfa) — 8/22/2006 @ 4:39 pm20 minutes. I really have no idea, except that they are both in L.A. (to us non-L.A. residents). Depending on traffic, that could be forever, or very short if they are close.
So far, I don’t know the point of this post, but I’ll add the following additional comment, in case it’s helpful. Obviously he is guilty. I don’t think this post is directed at me, since I’m not in the OJ might be innocent camp.
D Huff (551c31) — 8/22/2006 @ 4:55 pmHow long? I don’t remember. I would think it would depend on how many traffic laws are broken.
btw: there is a difference between ‘his not doing it’ and ‘beyond proved beyond a legal reasonable doubt’
seePea (8b9c42) — 8/22/2006 @ 6:21 pmAt 10:30 pm it is at most a 5 minute drive, perhaps less if you are speeding and hit the light at Sunset right.
Used to drive past Mezzaluna every day for work (lived at 3rd and Montana and worked at the VA) and had never heard of the place until the trial.
Was amazed at how many of my African American coworkers claimed OJ was framed etc and how they thought he was innocent. It was truly amazing how fixed they were in their beliefs. The general consensus of guilt vs innocence seemed to correlate to ethnicity. The prosecution definitely was screwed from the beginning.
What also amazed me is how predominately African American the jury was. I have been called to JD several times in downtown LA and never participated in a jury pool that was predominately black as was OJs. They must have done a lot of weeding out with the questionnaires to get such skewed results. Any insight into how this was achieved (presumably by the defense)?
Jan (dad581) — 8/22/2006 @ 6:24 pmPatrick,
This is one reason I like your site. As much as I “don’t care” about the subject (because in my opinion the killer has gotten away with it), I am fascinated with your take on it. I’ve come to respect your arguments and opinions, and this dang thread has me hooked. Keep going!
For those of you commenting on the “keystone cops” aspects of the investigation and on the prosecutorial ineptness, remember where you first heard that meme — from the defense. They may have had a slight bias in their presentation. Don’t let the “conventional wisdom” lead you astray. It may or may not be correct; it is certainly NOT unbiased.
Bill M (d9e4b2) — 8/22/2006 @ 6:35 pmIt takes 7 minutes…but wait, I wanna know how long does is take to get to Faye Resnick’s dealers’ source house via the Rockingham crib where he dropped off an 8-ball and the glove (accidently) near Space balls’ cottage? The prosecution sucked–vergiage in/verbiage out. If I were a No.Idahoan cop with a last name the same as an all-Black University, I would carry a chip on my shoulder too. Any Atty making $105k per year is in deep vs. $105k per week hired hands.
Stokes (616260) — 8/22/2006 @ 7:02 pm“Antimedia wrote:
*****Has anyone in this thread ever killed someone with a knife?*****”
There are probably people who would say I have. Certainly, I spent thousands of hours operating on people, many with stab wounds. When I finished my training at LA County. we had to summarize our cases for the board exams. I had 1500 stab wounds, give or take a few.
I was a doubter for a while but Petrocelli convinced me with the shoes. I know it takes only 5 minutes to make the drive but I also know how much blood is spilled when a throat is cut. I have spent many nights with someone’s belly open and had to throw my underwear away in the morning. The blood stains were the issue.
I think he was on a methamphetimine frenzy and was incredibly lucky to get off but some of the facts are not as easy to explain as advertised.
Mike K (416363) — 8/22/2006 @ 7:32 pmMike K, I found your comment a little hard to follow. Is the “he” on “a methamphetimine frenzy” to which you refer OJ?
Given your statements about blood and underwear, how do you explain the lack of blood on OJ and in the Bronco?
antimedia (f4b8a7) — 8/22/2006 @ 7:50 pmDon’t feed the troll.
Kat (4a462a) — 8/22/2006 @ 8:05 pmI have never killed anyone with a knife but I grew up on a farm. My parents butchered animals from as small as chickens to as large as three-hundred pound pigs. (With a “bleeding” stroke in the throat.) If you are positioned properly in relation to the animal, you need not get a single drop of blood on yourself.
nk (41da82) — 8/22/2006 @ 8:27 pmHow long? Probably five minutes, at a guess. Not something I paid a great deal of attention to, I admit.
htom (412a17) — 8/22/2006 @ 8:37 pmnk, the pig was normally hung by the hind legs from a branch, so that the blood would drain to the ground, and you slice its throat from behind, so the blood travels away from you. Generally, when you slaughter smaller animals (like chickens or rabbits) you do it in such a way that the blood travels away from you as well.
I doubt seriously a murderer in a jealous rage considers those options, especially one born in the city and especially one committing the crime in the confined space that was the front “yard” of Nicole’s condo.
antimedia (f4b8a7) — 8/22/2006 @ 8:50 pmI see we already have one participant who is only interested in debating facts that are not the subject of today’s post.
Crank (dbd95b) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:10 pmPatterico , your point about the distances and the travel time and how the jury was shown this only furthers the claim that the case was poorly prosecuted, poorly hardly being the adequate word.
Didn’t someone realize what was happening? How could the prosecution not gone to Judge Ito and asked for a re-do of the visit, this time at night and without the crowd? Or was everyone in the DA office too busy at night drinking wine and listening to soft music?
seePea (e47d6e) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:17 pmFolks:
Anybody else notice that Patterico has already suggested a very easy way for OJ not to get blood on the Bronc — and Antimedia never answered it?
I’ll quote it, just for the heck of it:
You understand the point? Since we know that OJ planned the crime — he actually took the knife with him — he would probably have been smart enough to realize that showing up at the limo covered with blood would probably excite attention.
So he puts on an old painter’s jump suit over a t-shirt and shorts, takes the knife and a plastic bag, drives over and kills them, strips off his outer clothing and shoves it in his bag, belatedly realizes he should have worn different shoes, but he puts those in the bag, too, and drives home.
Here is Antimedia’s only “response,” which isn’t even a response:
This is called the “Argument by Personal Incredulity”: Antimedia cannot imagine his hero doing anything like that — so therefore, it was all a frame.
But he won’t tell us who did the framing, because he knows we would howl with laughter to discover that he thinks it was Ron Shipp.
I suspect Antimedia has read and swallowed whole the absurdist J. Neil Schulman book “the Frame of the Century.”
Shipp gets OJ drunk in the hot tub. Then he extracts OJ’s blood, using a syringe, commits the killings, and then artfully scatters OJ’s blood around the crime scene to frame him.
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:21 pmantimedia,
it came out in the trial that OJ had been trained to use a knife in the manner in which Nicole and Ron Goldman were killed. It was done for a movie or TV project and he had been trained by an ex-SEAL.
chad (582404) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:25 pmActually, antimedia is not at all a bad defense attorney. Even if the timeline is irrefutable it is not dispositive. If antimedia can convince the “jury” that you cannot kill two people with a knife without getting soaked in blood that’s reasonable doubt. I’m glad he’s here. If he had four more commenters on his side it would be a sort of model of the trial. The defense was taking the case away from the prosecution every step of the way with speculation and collateral evidence.
nk (2e1372) — 8/22/2006 @ 9:36 pmDaydd, I’m a bit surprised by the personal nature of your attack. It’s almost as if you have no explanation for the crime so you figure ridiculing me will do the trick.
I ain’t buying it.
First of all, get it out of your head the OJ is/was my hero. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Furthermore, I’ve never even heard of The Frame of the Century, much less read it, and judging by the title, I wouldn’t buy the book. I don’t buy the he was framed argument for one minute.
Now, let’s try looking at the evidence and the arguments and try to act like adults, shall we?
You write
We’ll assume, for the sake of argument, that you’re correct in all the details. Where’s the clothes? Where’s the knife? Why, if OJ planned this murder, did the prosecution argue that it was a crime of passion – a jealous rage? And why, if OJ planned the murder, did he give himself so little time to commit it? Why wait until he was leaving town to rush over there, commit the murders and then rush back?
And BTW, the prosecution never made the argument that you make here, so the jury never would have considered it. (I did, but rejected it for the reasons that I’ve articulated.)
I’ve seen lots of scoffing and ridicule and assertions of certainty here, but I’ve seen almost no logical argumentation. I’m especially disappointed to find you resorting to ad hominem. I’ve admired your argumentation for quite some time, and I’m pretty sure you realize it.
Instead of assuming OJ is guilty, make your arguments. Patterico asserts that the timeline is a slam dunk – “nonsense” and “plenty” (of time) he says. I say, hold on a minute. It’s not quite as cut and dried as you claim.
And you say – antimedia must be nuts or stupid.
Yeah, that convinces me fer sure.
antimedia (f4b8a7) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:15 pmchad writes
First of all, Goldman wasn’t killed that way. The technique you refer to is to sneak up behind your foe and pull his head backwards while slicing his throat below the adam’s apple so that he can’t make any sound before he dies. Goldman was murdered in a mano-a-mano confrontation, face to face.
Secondly, being trained by a SEAL to perform the technique in a movie is a long way from actually doing it for real. It’s the difference between learning to drive a car in a parking lot with no distractions and actually driving the car in traffic.
The fact that OJ learned the technique is evidence that he could have committed the crime because he knew how. It doesn’t make him guilty.
antimedia (f4b8a7) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:22 pmI, for one, admire your style, antimedia. You did not attack our host’s argument’s biggest weakness — “just what time exactly did the crime occur?” which would start the running of the timeline. I was never convinced by “car detailers”, gates slamming and dogs barking either. In fact, that offended me. You chose an even more powerful strategy — proactive not reactive. Not just trying to push back the state’s case but actually derailing it.
nk (77d95e) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:31 pmantimedia, you’re right that the techniques OJ learned on the movie set do not ‘make him guilty.’
The overwhelming evidence presented in court is what makes OJ guilty.
You’re looking for a ‘perfect’ body of evidence—which only happens on “Law & Order.”
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:38 pmWe’ll assume, for the sake of argument, that you’re correct in all the details. Where’s the clothes? Where’s the knife?
He disposed of them.
Why, if OJ planned this murder, did the prosecution argue that it was a crime of passion – a jealous rage?
Did they not argue that he had purchased the knife well in advance?
And why, if OJ planned the murder, did he give himself so little time to commit it? Why wait until he was leaving town to rush over there, commit the murders and then rush back?
To give himself an alibi.
How long does it take to kill two people (one of whom, Nicole, clearly didn’t see it coming), ditch clothes and a knife, and drive five minutes to your home?
Not long.
Coincidence that the cuts — which he admitted he had cut on the night of the murders — were on Simpson’s left hand? That’s the same hand as the killer’s hand was cut, with drops on the left side of the killer’s shoe prints — which makes sense because the left-hand glove was pulled off at the scene. Of course, O.J. never owned Aris Isotoner gloves anyway, and never mind the photos that show he did. It’s like those “ugly-ass shoes” he never owned despite photographs he did.
Patterico (88ee30) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:40 pmP.S.
antimedia wrote:
“The technique you refer to is to sneak up behind your foe and pull his head backwards while slicing his throat below the adam’s apple so that he can’t make any sound before he dies.”
Good, good, good. The description of the technique is mildly wrong. The Fairbairn method is to put the weak hand over the victim’s mouth and twist it backward and sideways and stab, not slice, as close as possible to the temporal-mandibular joint, at an angle so that the carotid and larynx are both pierced and for insurance you punch your knife-hand forward so that the knife will also cut whatever you may have missed with the stab. (Fairbairn’s book “Get Tough” is still available on Amazon. I bought my copy as a teenager but my mother threw it away the first minute I left it out of my sight.) So let the prosecution rebut it and help keep the jury distracted from the central evidence a little bit more.
nk (947b03) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:56 pmearly on in this case, i quipped to somebody that o.j. didn’t do it, it was marcus allen. that was before a slim marcus allen connection actually emerged.
assistant devil's advocate (7e000f) — 8/22/2006 @ 11:02 pmi wonder what antimedia thinks of those 911 recordings where nicole was shrieking her head off. it was a simple mistake, marcus allen and not o.j. was threatening her! as a ucla fan since childhood, all usc backs look alike to me!
About 3-5 Minutes!!! Go up Bundy, Left on San Vicente, Right on Cliffwood, JAM across sunset, then Left on Ashford – This takes you right to the Garage of OJ’s house.. How do i know this? I used to shoot for KTLA-TV, I remember making “the drive” a few times wit various Reporters.. Oh. I miss the good ‘ole days of senseless OVERTIME!!..
James
James (caad50) — 8/22/2006 @ 11:52 pm5 minutes, max.
elliott (5a3b4c) — 8/23/2006 @ 12:11 amfor the record, i did not look before guessing. it’s just that i spent a lot of time in west L.A., first at UCLA, then Loyola Law School, etc.
and i’m always fascinated by people’s inability to accurately guess lengths of time. people either completely overestimate, or completely underestimate their guesses depending entirely on their point of view regarding the subject at hand. rarely, if ever, do they hit the nail on the head.
elliott (5a3b4c) — 8/23/2006 @ 12:17 amYeah, people don’t have any accurate impression of time.
That’s why we measure it.
*If* Marcia Clark and company along with Lance Ito let the jurors have a half hour ride between these two scenes without also letting them do the same trip when there was no traffic, whatever it took to bring that about including a court order clearing the streets and press, then they are grossly incompetent.
Which is one of the many reasons why I hold to my original opinion that Marcia Clark and company were so damn incompetent an acquittal was likely.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 12:31 amChris,
is it really the Judge’s place to re-do the trip without one of the attorneys petitioning the judge to do so?
Does anyone recall the reputation Marcia Clark had before the trial started? Was it better or worse than the guy who had to bail out due to heart trouble?
seePea (a459fd) — 8/23/2006 @ 12:37 amI guess you’ll get around to the DNA stuff at some point, but I wanted to pipe up with my own O.J. story.
I went to North Carolina State University from 1992 to 1996, and I was an active member of the math club there. Bruce Weir was a statistic prof there, and had been an expert witness for the prosecution regarding the probabilities in DNA matching. He flubbed something in trial, I think, but I’m not sure — I found the trial coverage ridiculous and missed most stupid details of the trial. (Here’s Prof. Weir’s webpage: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/bsw/bsw.html)
After the trial was over, the math club invited Prof. Weir to give a talk on his field, and boy, were we in for a treat. He brought the data from the Simpson trial, especially some that evidently came out after the trial was over. Oh, Prof. Weir was a very pissed off man. He also gave us advice as to if we were ever expert witnesses: if the other side asks a dumbass and/or misleading question, you don’t have to answer it. Just state that you can’t answer the question. Do not think you can finesse yourself around these things.
Anyway, the DNA tests were definitely of O.J.’s blood commingled with the victims’ (I don’t think the ID of the victims’ blood was in contention), not some other relative or random person on the street. It doesn’t answer whether the blood was planted evidence, but it does make one wonder how the cops just happened to have a sample of O.J.’s blood to put on an item that also had the victims’ blood on it.
Yeah, Prof. Weir was a very unhappy man. But I think your point about the jury was apt, and I bet that even if Weir’s evidence hadn’t been botched, it still would have made no difference. I sure hope he doesn’t think it’s his fault OJ got away with murder.
meep (c0f65d) — 8/23/2006 @ 2:05 amHi SeePea,
I’d never heard of her before the trial began, but I read quite a bit of her after.
And no, in no way was it Lance Ito’s fault if the prosecution was too dumb to notice this and petition for it.
Patterico noticed this (in hindsight, sure, but these were among their “best” lawyers at the time so you’d think they might have) and I can’t think of any reason why they wouldn’t.
I’ll use an example of a woman I can’t stand: Nancy Grace.
She’s an emotionally manipulative drama queen, in my humble opinion, and seems to often be mistaken, which doesn’t stop her from pursuing her vendetta(s) against supposed wrongdoers full throttle.
Of course, they’re usually (not always) guilty, but this seems secondary to her.
However, where she excels is that she realizes juries and people are not fountains of logic and learned debate. She handles the emotional in a trial and in her interactions with people.
This is at least as persuasive as pure logic, and she at least gives enough of that to allow a person to rationalize doing what they want to do in most cases, which is “make someone pay”.
Clark seems to have missed the boat on this entirely. Crappy jury selected according to Patterico (I’m not sure if she could have done much about this), unfocused prosecution, inadequate consideration of the jury’s perceptions… as if timelimes from a somewhat discredited police force without their own experiences to match would be adequate.
It wasn’t. O.J. walked.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 2:10 amOooh, I looked down Prof. Weir’s publications list. He most definitely went around telling everybody about his experience (it’s in the correspondence and commentaries list).
In any case, I don’t think the DNA evidence had any sway with the jury. Even if they admitted it was OJ’s blood, it was that racist Mark Fuhrman who planted evidence about OJ. Or the glove didn’t fit so they must acquit. Something like that. I’m sure they didn’t care about the DNA evidence at all.
meep (c0f65d) — 8/23/2006 @ 2:11 amMark Fuhrman, whose mind I greatly respect, had shown himself to be a racist by this time, the glove didn’t fit and the prosecution went out of there way to prove this in the trial…
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 2:15 amTo be clear, I respect Mark Furhman for his ability to reform himself of the awful disability of racism and to provide excellent crime analysis since this unfortunate trial.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 2:16 amForgive the multiple comments, I’m still thinking…
I would be more sympathetic to Patterico’s argument that it’s the jury’s fault if even one person on the jury had disagreed with their verdict.
Instead, they were united and some even said that they think O.J. might have did it, probably did do it, but the prosecution didn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
And that’s pretty much my reading too as a lay person and from memory.
I could be wrong… I didn’t follow the trial as closely as Patterico or many of you… I just find it too convenient to blame the jury when I think there is a whole lot of blame to spread around, from racist cops investigating the case and handling blood evidence, to an off the rails prosecution designed, seemingly, to advance the prosecutor’s anti-domestic violence agenda.
A worthy cause. The wrong place for it, if you ask me. Which you didn’t.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 2:26 amapprox. 5 minutes ?
Kevin Crowley (db61ae) — 8/23/2006 @ 2:52 amWhose idea was it to visit the crime scene and OJ’s home and for what purpose? When in the trial did the field trip happen and was there a lag between the time it was requested and when it happened?
So far, and it is very early in his ‘case’, Patterico has not even come close to convincing me that it was the jury’s fault but has confirmed to me that the prosecution of the case was negligent.
Are prosecutors liable for criminal negligance when totally messing up a case?
seePea (e5dd40) — 8/23/2006 @ 4:30 am“Mike K, I found your comment a little hard to follow. Is the “he” on “a methamphetimine frenzy” to which you refer OJ?”
Yes. I don’t think it was a planned crime. He could have done better than that. Maybe he got the idea and Goldman happened to be there or maybe Goldman was a motive.
“Given your statements about blood and underwear, how do you explain the lack of blood on OJ and in the Bronco?”
It bothered me. There are some comments about Bruce Fairbairn and knife fighting. Nicole’s head was almost cut off. There were cut marks on her vertebrae. This was definitely a rage situation. No subtlety and she should have bled like a fountain.
I have also been an expert witness many times and can second the remark about not responding to stupid questions. I was once asked about a shotgun pattern on the body of a shooting victim. The asker was an affirmative action assistant DA (Not Patrick, it was Orange County) and my reply was that I was not a ballistics expert. He had those in court. It made him look dumb, which he was. The end result was a shooter got acquitted on the grounds of self defense. The victim was naked in the shooter’s bed with his wife.
Bad lawyering like the OJ case. I agree the biggest mistake was moving it downtown.
Mike K (416363) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:45 amPatrick, you wrote
Here you are implying calculated pre-planning. I’ll respond to that in a minute….
That depends upon the circumstances. Nicole was in the house. (We know this because she was preparing a bath.) She had to be induced to come out front for some reason – either because she heard the noise of Ron being killed (the likely scenario, I think) or because the killer convinced her to come outside and killed her first, then Ron stumbled on the scene – but why would he be there then?.
I’m not an expert, but I would think at least ten minutes would have been necessary to accomplish everything that was done at Bundy (park the car, come around the front, kill Ron and Nicole and return to the car), which would have been parked in the rear, if the prosecution is right. Then you need ten minutes driving time (both ways) and you need time to dispose of the clothes and the knife so that no one will ever find them.
This, for me, is new evidence. I don’t recall this coming out at the trial. Am I mistaken?
Basically, two scenarios have been posited. The prosecution contended that this was a rage murder induced by jealousy. You contend it was a cold, calculated murder.
If the former is true, then why would OJ have the means to dispose of the evidence with him when he went to Bundy? If the latter is true, then why would OJ drop a glove at the scene, another behind Kato’s bungalow and a bloody sock on his bedroom floor?
The problem with the evidence is you need a person with split personality – or two different people at the scene. You need a cold, calculating killer who feels no remorse and plans carefully, but you also need a sloppy, rage-filled killer who acts out of emotion.
And you need OJ to do all of this in a very tight time frame. Ten minutes driving time. Ten minutes at the scene and ten minutes to dispose of the evidence (except for two gloves and one sock, of course) without leaving a trace for anyone to find.
Did you know that Jason is the same size as OJ, wears the same shoe size and is a sous chef, with his own collection of knives? Did you know that he closed the restaurant early that night and was extremely angry because Nicole stood him up? Did you know that Jason took medication to control his rages, and that he stopped taking the medication a few weeks before the murders? Did you know that he threatened his girlfriend with a knife just days before the murders? Did you know that the police never investigated Jason?
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/23/2006 @ 7:56 amBecause he’s no Hannibal Lecter. Why do criminals ever screw up? And how did the bloody sock get into the house?
You’re putting us on, aren’t you?
Pablo (efa871) — 8/23/2006 @ 8:01 amassistant devil’s advocate writes
Of course it was OJ, but evidence came out (either at the trial or later, I don’t recall) that Nicole was the abusive one, not OJ. She threw things at him, including expensive paintings and glassware, when she would get angry. She would scream very loudly and threaten him.
I recall seeing pictues of her with bruises, but there was never any testimony that she got them from OJ. And she could easily have gotten them from Jason, who was (and probably still is) a very violent and out-of-control individual.
There seems to be a general thread here that, if you believe OJ is not guilty, you must also believe the cops were racist and they framed OJ. I believe Fuhrman was racist (that was proven at trial), but I don’t for one minute believe that the cops framed anybody. I do believe the criminalists and detectives were sloppy and inattentive (Vanatter sp? kept evidence in his trunk overnight – so much for chain of custody!), and I suspect that’s because they thought they already knew who the killer was.
But I suspect Patrick will get to that in another post, so I’ll leave it for now.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/23/2006 @ 8:04 ampablo writes
But Patrick insists that OJ knew exactly what he was doing. I have a hard time believing someone can be a meticulous planner, thinking through every detail of a crime and then, when he drops a glove, go, “Oh well. I’ll just leave it there.”, then drop another one behind his house (talk about implicating yourself in the murder!), then drop a sock on the floor of his bedroom and just walk away.
Nope. I’m dead serious. Instead of focusing on irrelevant stuff (like whether or not I’m putting you on), focus on the evidence. Ask yourself, as a juror, do you believe that a guy could both plan a murder in advance, including disposing of the evidence and yet carelessly leave one glove at the scene and one at his house and a sock on his floor.
I have less of a hard time believing that Jason killed Ron and Nicole in a rage, called OJ, who rushed right over, saw what he had done and told him to get the hell out of there, and then went back home to figure out how to cover up his son’s crime. If Jason commmitted the murders in a rage, it makes sense that he would drop a glove at the scene and another at the house, then follow his father’s instructions to get rid of all the evidence.
Then OJ, in a hurry to leave to catch his flight, drops a sock on the floor and doesn’t realize it.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/23/2006 @ 8:31 amAnd she could easily have gotten them from Jason, who was (and probably still is) a very violent and out-of-control individual.
When and where was that suppposed to have occurred? And why wouldn’t she press charges?
Gerald A (10b9b3) — 8/23/2006 @ 9:32 amYour hard time believing does not equate to either impossibility nor improbability. Who says OJ is meticulous? Do you think he couldn’t have committed the crime without being well practiced in post dual homicide cleanup and evidence disposal?
Criminals usually get caught because they screwed up. By your logic, anyone who screws up and gets caught can’t be guilty, because real guilty people don’t make mistakes.
I was referring to what I bolded, your suggestion that not a trace was left after mentioning the two gloves and a sock, all of which are traces that were left. You’re blatantly contradicting yourself within a single sentence, something serious people normally don’t do.
It’s entirely possible. Why wouldn’t it be? And speaking of evidence, what evidence ties Jason to the crime?
Pablo (efa871) — 8/23/2006 @ 10:02 amGerald A asks
I’m sorry, I don’t recall the where and when, except that it seems it was a while before the murders (six months? a year?)
As to why she wouldn’t press charges, how would I know? Women often don’t press charges against abusers, for a number of reasons – fear, not wanting to get the loved one in trouble, a foolish sense that it was a one-time occurrence, etc., etc.
I can’t possibly know what was in Nicole’s mind, but if Jason, who was her step-son, hit her, there could be all sorts of familial reasons for keeping it quiet.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/23/2006 @ 10:04 amPablo writes
It’s a problem for the prosecution if I’m a juror!
That came out in court. He was apparently very meticulous.
Of course not. People commit crimes all the time without first having practiced them, and murderers often leave evidence of their crimes behind.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that it’s unlikely that someone who was so remorseless as to have planned such a violent crime, including wearing clothes to keep the blood off them and a means to dispose of the evidence of the crime would also “forget” a glove at the scene and another at their own house. Those are signs of a careless killer who doesn’t think through their actions – someone driven by emotion rather than reason. (I might also point out that, even wearing a jumpsuit, the killer would be unlikely to have no blood on their underwear.)
Sure. I was being a bit ironic. The point is, arguing that the killer planned everything in advance yet was careless enough to leave evidence pointing directly to themselves seems a bit of a stretch to me. I think it’s question begging.
So you think an individual can both carefully plan a crime, including how they would dispose of the evidence and, at the same time, carelessly drop evidence pointing directly to themselves after committing the crime, yet dispose of everything except those few tantilizing clues? I wonder if there are any real-life examples of that?
Tons.
Means. Jason was a sous chef and carried a set of knives in his car – very sharp knives that could easily have been the murder weapon(s) used in the crime.
Motive. Jason was known to be violent, had been off his meds for four weeks at the time of the murders and was extremely angry at Nicole for standing him up that night.
Opportunity. Jason closed the restaurant early that night yet manually filled out his time sheet to reflect leaving after the murders were committed. He knew where Nicole lived. He owned a car. He carried his knives with him in the car.
Evidence. Jason is the same size as OJ. Same DNA (almost.) Same shoe size. Same blood type. Same shoes (Jason also owned Bruno Maglis.)
It’s certainly enough to warrant investigation, but the police never did. They looked at Jason’s hand-written timesheet, saw that he clocked out at midnight and dismissed him as a suspect. They never even asked any other restaurant employee, what time did the restaurant close. The answer, which is 9:30 to 9:45, makes Jason look very suspicious and gives him ample opportunity to commit the murders and then call his dad (which cell phone records prove that he did.)
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/23/2006 @ 10:25 amSame DNA (almost.)
What’s that word you tried to bury in the parenthetical?
I think it was “almost.”
There goes your theory. As Dafydd pointed out long ago (and you ignored), Jason is not a clone of O.J.
Patterico (88ee30) — 8/23/2006 @ 11:23 amOf course Jason isn’t a clone of OJ. But my recollection of the DNA evidence is that OJ couldn’t be excluded, not that he was the exclusive donor. Jason’s DNA would be very similar to his, but that issue never came up in court. No sample of Jason’s DNA was ever compared to known samples from the crime scene. It would be very interesting to see the results of that test.
I think, back then, the DNA testing wasn’t as conclusory as it is these days IIRC.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/23/2006 @ 11:49 amTo all of those like antimedia who are talking about how long it took to kill Ron and Nicole and it can’t have been done, what with parking the car, etc., in 10 minutes.
Hogwash.
A large strong man, armed, particularly if he has any clue what he’s doing with the application of violence, but in any case, can inflict lethal injuries on two individuals in seconds.
So, by all means count the time to park the car, clean up, etc., but don’t be silly and say they couldn’t have been killed that fast.
Of course they can. It doesn’t take a whole lot of time to slash and stab people… O.J. was an athlete.
Get real.
Chris from Victoria, BC (5ab65d) — 8/23/2006 @ 11:57 amBut my recollection of the DNA evidence is that OJ couldn’t be excluded, not that he was the exclusive donor.
The testimony was that there was a 1 in 170 million likelihood that it wasn’t OJ Simpson’s.
Jason’s DNA would be very similar to his, but that issue never came up in court.
I think you’re making things up or you heard wrong. Siblings’ DNA would be very similar. Children get half their DNA from each parent, so it would be a lot different.
Gerald A (fe1f90) — 8/23/2006 @ 12:26 pmSix minutes
Tony Ciarriocco (d24dc6) — 8/23/2006 @ 12:26 pmYou’re presenting a false dilemma here.
Meticulous people do forget things sometimes, despite themselves. Meticulous people who have just committed a double homicide for the first time would very likely experience a huge adrenaline overload that would override their meticulous nature. So, forgetting a glove or some other small bit of evidence in the process of cleaning up other bits of evidence doesn’t rule out prior planning.
Steverino (bd9282) — 8/23/2006 @ 2:28 pmEspecially when that double homicide was planned as a single homicide. He planned to kill Nicole. He didn’t plan to kill Ron, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
How freaked out are you when you’re committing your very first murder and you wind up having to kill a witness in hand to hand combat? I don’t know for sure, but I’m going to guess “very freaked out”. It certainly can’t be calming.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/23/2006 @ 3:34 pmSo he kills them, then he starts his cleanup – doffs his jumpsuit, dumps it in the bag, leaves the glove on his right hand, ignores the missing glove from his left hand and heads home?
Doesn’t seem very likely to me. When he’s cleaning up and disposing of the bloody clothes, the missing glove would stick out like a sore thumb. Furthermore, even if he searched for and couldn’t find the missing glove, why would he carry the other one (remember, he dropped it behind Kato’s bungalow) rather than put it in the garbage bag with all the other stuff he’s desposing off?
This is a very odd, and unlikely set of events. Even in a panicked state, one should notice the missing glove, and one should certainly take the other glove off and put it in the bag with the jumpsuit and the knife.
And where is he doing all this doffing of clothes? In the front yard? Unlikely. In the back of the house? Where’s the bloody evidence of all that work? After he gets home? Now we have the lack of the blood in the Bronco to contend with.
I still contend that the blood tells the story and what it tells us is that OJ was there but not directly involved in the murders. There’s too many gaps to eliminate reasonable doubt.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/23/2006 @ 3:51 pmAntimedia:
I have no idea where he disposed of them. But somebody did, unless you think they’re still sitting in the house of whomever you think is the real murderer this very moment.
Is your argument actually that it would have been impossible for, say, O.J. Simpson to stuff a bag of clothing and the knife in a duffle bag, then, for a wildly speculative example, remove the bag and throw it into a trash bin at LAX? Or perhaps put them in his garment bag, check it through to Chicago, and throw them away in a trash bin somewhere in the windy city?
I mean, these scenarios really never occurred to you?
Do most murderers carry bloody clothes and the murder weapon around with them for days, or do they get rid of them?
You raise absurdist and irrelevant red herrings in order to wave away the boatload of forensic evidence. How do you explain it all? It’s not really OJ’s blood at the scene? It’s not really the victims’ blood at OJ’s house and in his Bronco?
Those weren’t actually his “ugly ass” Bruno Magli shoes — they were somebody else’s? Somebody else who carefully dripped O.J.’s blood along the trail of footprints… on the same side as Simpson’s cut finger?
Do you mean to accuse the LAPD of attempted murder? Are you impugning all those cops — and would this be, dare I say it, a personal attack on the integrity of Mark Fuhrman and the other detectives and cops on the scene?
Or is it the police lab technicians who you call criminals?
For God’s sake, Antimedia — do you honestly believe that a person in a jealous rage cannot plan a murder? That he cannot even think to bring a weapon, or think later how to dispose of it?
Are you literally sitting there, expecting us to believe that all murders by jealous ex-husbands are carried out spontaneously, spur of the moment, and that none has ever been premeditated in the history of American crime?
You don’t want to suffer attacks of a “personal nature;” you want us all to act like “adults.” Then why don’t you act like an adult and stop playing Internet Deconstructionism?
Your basic technique is to more or less explain away any one specific piece of evidence. But at some point, don’t even you begin to wonder why all these hundreds of pieces of evidence each point to one and only one person in the world — O.J. Simpson?
You clutch for straws by suggesting it was Jason Simpson who killed them. But why? What physical evidence connects him to the killings?
Was the victims’ blood found in his room? Was it found in his car, assuming he even has a car? Did he steal Daddy’s shoes to frame his own father? Was his own blood found at the murder scene?
Your only reasons for blaming Jason instead of O.J. are:
You must seriously consider the physical evidence… and that doesn’t mean you must strain your brain to find a way to dismiss it all.
Hm, that’s a toughie. Now why would Simpson want to make it look as though he had no time to commit the murders, when he could just as easily have committed them on a day when didn’t even have a partial alibi?
And on a completely unrelated note, I wonder why his defense was that he didn’t have time to commit the murders?
I’ll have to ponder that one.
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 8/23/2006 @ 5:52 pmAntimedia:
This is a perfect example of the fundamental dishonesty of your position. You pretend there are only two criminal modes:
This is a risible argument. It is laughable.
Ordinary people understand that someone can plan a murder down to the last detail… and then become very upset and careless after actually killing the victim and start making stupid mistakes (like dropping things at the scene).
Anyone of at least ordinary intelligence understands that; you are of at least ordinary intelligence; therefore you, Antimedia, understand that as well as the rest of us.
But you pretend that you don’t, just to horse us around, hoping we’ll eventually tire of responding to your nonsense and depart.
(At which point, you’ll triumphantally declare victory.)
Please stop insulting us by your over-literal misinterpretations of what everybody else says. A crime can be premeditated — yet still executed clumsily. A murderer can be very jealous and enraged — yet still take time plotting his revenge. A man shaken by killing his ex-wife, shaken enough that he drops several items on the way home, can still think to dispose of the knife and the rest of the bloody clothing that would put a rope around his neck.
This is all normal, easy stuff that happens in murder after murder after murder in this country. Stop wasting everybody’s valuable time long enough to answer the real questions: how do you get around the physical evidence? Where did it all come from?
Do you, like Chris From Victoria, believe that Mark Fuhrman was such a “racist” that he somehow planted all that evidence, just to “get” O.J. Simpson? That he customarily carried around vials of the blood of various black celebrities, on the off chance he might get an opportunity to frame one of them?
Do you believe that some evil laboratory technician substituted O.J.’s (already treated) blood for the blood evidence gathered at the scene?
Or do you believe that Jason Simpson has exactly the same DNA as his father? That is, that he’s not really the son of O.J. and his first wife, but rather is the first actual human clone in history?
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:26 pmAntimedia:
Let’s see:
Oh, yeah; in light of your earlier skepticism about the timeline, this makes much more sense. No, really.
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:39 pmAntimedia:
The human component would be fifty percent similar. Don’t you remember — 23 and 23?
O.J.’s brother would be much closer. O.J.’s nonexistent evil twin would be exact.
Do you actually believe that genetic “fingerprinting” cannot distinguish between a man and his son? Or is this yet another shuck and jive act to wish away the evidence?
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:44 pmAntimedia, I have faced extreme anxiety when faced with being late on submitting my homework, asking a girl for a date, or trying to get to work and realizing I’m running behind.
In all and any of those circumstances, I have made various bone headed mistakes. I’m sure that I could fail to account for a glove.
Under the extrme stress that I imagine a man who has murdered for the fist time in his life would feel, I don’t find it difficult to imagine he might make such a mistake.
However, I don’t expect to convince you.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:45 pm*extreme
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:46 pm*first
(and I was under no particular stress as I typed that)
Antimedia:
Oh, I almost forgot… where is the evidence of a second person tramping around that bloody crime scene?
Where are Jason’s footprints? If he borrowed Pop’s ugly-ass Bruno Magli shoes, then where are O.J.’s footprints? Did he wear stilts?
This nonsense is nothing but vamping up a phantom “second killer,” in the face of a mountain of evidence implicating O.J. And the only reason you have to imagine-up this second killer is that you just can’t imagine O.J. Simpson killing Ron and Nicole.
If I see a man stick a gun in somebody’s face, and the second guy hands over his wallet, and the guy with the gun runs away with it… well maybe the first guy just bought a new gun and was showing it to his friend; then his friend remembered that he had borrowed the first guy’s wallet, so he returned it; and then the guy with the gun suddenly remembered that he was late home to watch Law and Order, so he ran off.
But forgive me for thinking I witnessed an armed robbery instead.
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:55 pmI hardly know where to begin, Daydd. First of all, I’m not trying to find OJ innocent. I’m trying to see if I can fit the evidence to the scenario the prosecution laid out as their explanation for the murders.
If you’re going to sit on a jury and find someone guilty of murder, you’d damn sure better have more than, “Well, it sure looks like he did it, and I can’t find any other explanation, so what the hell, he’s guilty!”
Most people simply want to explain away the inconsistencies because obviously OJ is guilty, so what does it matter if a few details are oddly out of place? That is the precise mirror image of what they accuse the jury of doing. Seems rather ironic, doesn’t it? Those who believe he’s guilty accuse the jury of having predetermined the outcome. Yet, those, like myself, who have trouble with the inconsistencies in the evidence are told to stop being so picky and admit he’s guilty.
Did OJ throw a duffle bag in the trash at LAX? No, because the limo driver testified to the number of bags OJ had, and a duffle bag wasn’t one of them. So scratch that explanation.
Did OJ stuff the bloody clothes ina plastic bag, for example, fly them to Chicago and dispose of them there? The police thought of that, looked and didn’t find any evidence of that. However, broken glass and blood was found in his hotel, which comports with his explanation that he cut his hand on the glass that broke.
You claim there was a “boatload” of evidence. That’s simply false. There was a paucity of evidence connecting OJ to the crime. The blood trail that followed the footprints was “consistent” with OJ’s blood, but it’s also consistent with Jason’s blood. The blood was tested for DNA, but no comparison was ever made to Jason’s DNA. The Y chromozone passed from father to son has identical DNA, so the variation between father and son would be much less than between two strangers. (And if we have any DNA experts here, please chime in.)
There were eight drops of blood at the crime scene that could have been OJ’s or Jasons. There were blood smears in the Bronco that belonged to Ron and Nicole but no blood drops from OJ. Had he stopped bleeding?
There was a mixture of Nicole’s, Ron’s and “OJ’s” blood on the right hand glove found at Rockingham, and Nicole’s blood on the sock found in his bedroom.
You claim
Yet proponents of OJ’s guilt explain away the inconsistencies the same way. No bloody clohes? Well, obviously he must have thrown them away somewhere! No knife? Well, obviously he got rid of it, silly!
There are not “hundreds” of pieces of evidence pointing to OJ. There are precisely 11. Eight blood drops at Bundy, the right hand glove behind the bungalow, the blood in the Bronco (which was miniscule) and the bloody sock. That’s it.
You asked
Good questions, Daydd, but Jason’s room was never searched, nor was his car and his blood was never compared to samples at the crime scene. His DNA was never compared to DNA collected in the case.
Finally, you wrote
There was no evidence introduced at trial that OJ was violent. Jason, OTOH, took drugs to control his violent impulses, and a few weeks before the murders he had stopped taking those drugs. His girl friend admitted that he had become increasingly violent and threatened her with a knife, holding it to her throat, just days before the murders.
You’re wrong about me refusing to consider OJ as the murderer. I think he’s an obvious suspect and likely would have been found guilty if a different prosecution team had been in place. Furthermore, I could care less about OJ.
I just think this case is a good opportunity for people to look themselves in the eye and ask themselves if they are really being objective.
OTOH, those who believe OJ is guilty refuse to consider even the possibility that he might not be. Like you, they claim “boatloads” of evidence, literall “hundreds” of clues, when the truth is, there are very few, and those there are only place OJ at the scene.
I’ve already stated I am certain OJ was at the crime scene. I believe he came there after his son called him and told him something terrible had happened, and he helped his son conceal and dispose of evidence in a misguided attempt to protect him.
antimedia (e1e5f7) — 8/23/2006 @ 7:12 pmI should add something – by the end of the trial I was convinced that Jason had committed the murders and OJ was covering for him (in what amounts to an incredible gamble on his part.) So, when the verdicts were announced, I was watching Jason very closely. He was the only member of the Simpson family who was not overjoyed by the verdict. In fact, he looked oddly sullen and strangely out of place from the rest of the family.
OJ looked incredibly relieved, like he had dodged a bullet, which he had.
antimedia (e1e5f7) — 8/23/2006 @ 7:20 pm5 minutes
Jeremy (c76bbf) — 8/23/2006 @ 7:23 pmThere are not “hundreds” of pieces of evidence pointing to OJ. There are precisely 11. Eight blood drops at Bundy, the right hand glove behind the bungalow, the blood in the Bronco (which was miniscule) and the bloody sock. That’s it.
His hair was on Goldman’s shirt.
The dome light in the Bronco had been removed.
Nicole’s missing keys were at O.J.’s house.
O.J. broke up with Paula Barbieri that day.
O.J. beat Nicole before.
The gloves were Simpson’s size — despite the “they don’t fit” nonsense. He had owned the same brand of gloves and had been photographed wearing them.
The bloody footprints were from a rare pair of Bruno Magli shoes, in Simpson’s size — which he lied and denied ever owning, calling them “ugly-ass shoes” that he would never wear.
Nicole said O.J. had been stalking her, and would kill her and get away with it.
He bought a knife weeks before the crime that matched the wounds.
When he was notified of Nicole’s death, he never asked how she died.
The drops of blood were from the left hand, where Simpson himself had been cut — that night, by his own admission.
He ran from police and had a getaway kit. He wrote a note that reeked of guilt.
And so on and so on and so on.
Patterico (4b64ca) — 8/23/2006 @ 8:02 pmNo, antimedia, I consider the possibility that he might not be guilty. I don’t fault the jury for failing to convict based on what I know of the prosecution and police’s case and conduct.
I certainly feel, however, that he had the ability, motive, and time to commit this crime.
I believe he did it. Probably. Based on what I learned in the media, I would have acquitted him for the reason that reasonable doubt existed.
And I’m a strong law and order “hang ’em high” type.
However, certainly, I wasn’t on the jury so I don’t know 100% for sure what I would have done because I didn’t hear the case they did.
If I felt guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, I would have voted to convict even if it was 11-1.
While that would be frustrating, if I had been on the jury and convinced to that degree of O.J.’s guilt, a hung jury is better than an undeserved acquittal.
I’m still not getting how the jury was wrong though. Based on what Clark & co. gave them.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 8:05 pmOf course, Patterico’s short summary was impressive. If only the court case had been made equally coherrently and cogently.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 8:07 pmPatrick, African American hair was found on Goldman’s shirt, not OJ’s hair – unless you know something that I don’t know.
I don’t recall any testimony that OJ had ever hit Nicole. Was there any in the trial transcript? Or did you get that from the press?
WRT to his cut hand, you seem to be hedging. Are you saying that OJ stated that his cut his hand before flying to Chicago?
Everything else you listed is circumstantial. Damning? Certainly! Conclusory? No! You can place him at the crime scene, which I have already stated is obvious. You cannot put the knife in his hand. There is no question he was there. The question is, did he commit the crimes? I am unpersuaded. Sorry.
And the LA authorities have never bothered to investigate Jason. All they would have to do is take a sample from him and test the DNA. Prove it doesn’t match the crime scene. Then you’ve proven OJ committed the murders because no one else could possible have done so. Until then, you still have reasonable doubt.
I know, as a prosecuting attorney, that sticks in your craw, but those are the facts. Quite blaming the jury for the prosecution’s failure to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
antimedia (e1e5f7) — 8/23/2006 @ 8:37 pmCircumstantial evidence is equally as powerful as direct evidence and is entitled to the same weight.
Patterico (4b64ca) — 8/23/2006 @ 8:42 pmhow does one do quoting here? Anyway , in 108 Patterico wrote:
Circumstantial evidence is equally as powerful as direct evidence and is entitled to the same weight.
If this is the law of the land in CA, then I could never sit on a jury. If there is direct evidence that A happened and circumstantial evidence that A did not happen, there is NO WAY I would say it was a toss up.
seePea (731875) — 8/23/2006 @ 8:55 pmIn #106, Chris from Victoria, BC wrote:
Of course, Patterico’s short summary was impressive. If only the court case had been made equally coherrently and cogently.
Which is a point that many people are refusing to concede. I’m waiting for Patterico to start reviewing the actual prosecution of the case (it is his blog) but people here need to keep in mind that there is a difference between thinking/believing OJ murdered and being able to say that as a juror one would have voted for conviction based on how the case was actually mis-prosecuted.
seePea (731875) — 8/23/2006 @ 9:00 pmI concur with your last comment and am waiting pensively for the same, seePea.
As far as circumstantial evidence being powerful and sufficient in many cases to convict, yes, totally.
As far as it being equally as powerful as direct evidence, Patterico, I believe that’s daft.
Would you rather go to trial with 15 pieces of circumstantial evidence or 15 pieces of direct evidence?
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 9:26 pmPatrick, I’ll give you a challenge. If you will promise to read it with an open mind and consider carefully what he has to say, then I will purchase and have shipped to you a copy of William Dear’s OJ is Guilty, But Not of Murder for you to read. (My copy is personally autographed by Dear, purchased at a lecture he gave at the university where I work.) Take as long as you like. Compare it with the trial transcripts, the autopsy notes and any other material you have regarding the case.
After you’re read the book, post your opinion of it here, and I will accept your verdict regarding the facts and no longer argue the case with you.
Again, it is my contention, and the results of Dear’s investigation prove it (IMNSHO), that Jason committed the murders, then called OJ in a panic. (And yes, Daydd, there is a cell phone record of that phone call.) OJ drove to the Bundy residence and yes, he took the light out of the Bronco, wore the Bruno Maglis, maybe the gloves as well (but that might have been Jason – same size hands), got blood on himself, and covered up the crime. Hell, he may have even cut himself accidentally while he was at Bundy, but without Jason’s DNA samples, we’ll never know.
But his purpose in going there was to see what his son had done, get him under control and figure out what to do with all the evidence so his son wouldn’t be caught and sentenced, perhaps, to execution.
Jason would have been covered in blood (and to those who insist these two murders could have occurred in “seconds” please read the autopsy reports. Nicole alone had eight separate stab wounds, including defensive wounds, indicating that her attacker was in front of her, not behind.) Ron had many stab wounds, many defensive wounds, bruises on the knuckles of both hands (indicating that he put up a fierce struggle) and would have left evidence of the fight on his assailant.
If you accept the challenge, send me email with the address to ship the book to. Take as long as you want. Then post the results of your analysis of Dear’s arguments. It has nothing to do with coverups, frameups, gloves that don’t fit or any of that other silliness. It has everything to do with going where the evidence leads you, using Occam’s Razor and not concocting wild theories to explain the unexplainable.
There are a lot of stupid books out there claiming OJ didn’t do it. This is not one of them. (And no, I didn’t get my theories about the crime from Dear. His book merely confirmed what I had already drawn from the trial and filled in some details about what the police missed.)
antimedia (e1e5f7) — 8/23/2006 @ 9:52 pmI agree with antimedia, Patterico. If you don’t want to except a copy from him, I’ll send you one. I believe SOMEONE should seriously look into the possibility that Jason was involved in the murders. I cannot believe that no one in the district attorney’s office hasn’t looked into any of William Dear’s evidence. I also know for a fact that Dr. Henry Lee is “promoting” Mr. Dear’s theory, although he has not said personally that Jason did it.
sp (f6b45e) — 8/23/2006 @ 11:12 pmIt seems to me, Patterico, that you should at least maintain an open mind and consider it. To the point of reading that book.
It’s a subject that understandably interests you… and, how shall I put this, it’s your job.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/23/2006 @ 11:32 pmpatterico’s short summary in #104 is, indeed, impressive.
assistant devil's advocate (b6d248) — 8/24/2006 @ 12:15 amimagine your wife has just been killed by an unknown party, perhaps a colombian drug dealer as was mentioned at the time. how likely are you to mope your way down the freeway in the back seat of a bronco, pointing a gun at your own head?
antimedia says “if you’re going to sit on a jury and find someone guilty of murder, you’d damn sure better have more than “well, it sure looks like he did it, and i can’t find any other explanation, so what the hell, he’s guilty!”
uh, no. that’s right at the threshhold of beyond a reasonable doubt, and depending on the totality of the circumstances, enough to push it over, as it did for scott peterson, correctly in my view. “beyond a reasonable doubt” isn’t the same thing as “no doubt whatsoever”, there’s a caljic instruction (standard jury instructions for criminal cases in california) explaining the difference.
antimedia disparages circumstantial evidence. g. k. chesterton had the great line for this “some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when one finds a trout in the milk.” if direct evidence were required for conviction in all cases, i could go out and murder people with impunity. real life murder cases can be complex and open-ended, they don’t all resolve in 60 minutes like law & order or csi.
one aspect of the case i’d like to see further developed: roosevelt grier visited o.j. in jail, apparently in his clergyman capacity, not his offensive lineman or needlepointer capacities, and it was reported that o.j. said something along the lines of an admission that was overheard by a third party, probably a guard at the jail, but which was suppressed due to the clergyman-penitent privilege. i don’t think the prosecution tried hard enough to break that privilege and bring the statement to light. the clergyman-penitent privilege is just a sop to christianity anyway, and it should be abolished.
Patterico, the other day I believe you were prescient about this thread when you stated the following:
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/24/2006 @ 12:24 am**************
The bottom line is this: people who don’t want to be convinced of something cannot be convinced.
**************
Daffydd criticizes the “Argument by Personal Incredulity.”
All rejections of a case are based on personal incredulity. Why else would you reject a case except, “I don’t believe it’? Daffydd rejects the case OJ didn’t do it based on personal incredulity.
Gene Callahan (8aa5dc) — 8/24/2006 @ 4:39 amThe Desert Rat wrote:
Antimedia (who, for those unfamiliar with his site, is not a flaming liberal) is a reasonable man — and he has been presenting what, for him, is a reasonable doubt.
He has a very valid point: where did all of the blood go? Several people have come up with ideas on his Mr Simpson could have committed the murders, and not gotten drenched in blood, and a couple have had ideas of how he could have disposed of blood-soaked clothing and not gotten the inside of the Bronco a lot bloodier, but those ideas are essentially speculation.
This is an interesting thread; while I’m certain that our esteemed host could provide us with the California legal definition of “reasonable doubt,” the commenters here have proven what we already knew: reasonable doubt means different things to different people — including the twelve different people on the jury.
In this thread, Antimedia has provided for us (and done yeoman’s work, under difficult conditions) the same service provided by Actus and Psyberian and Asinistra on other threads: made a presentation of the “other side,” and done so with diligence and a thick skin.
Dana (1d5902) — 8/24/2006 @ 5:30 amantimedia, that is a nearly perfect expression of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. If it appears to a reasonable person that the accused committed the crime, and that same reasonable person cannot imagine a plausible alternate scenario that explains the evidence, that person has decided guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in precisely the manner that jurors are asked to use.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/24/2006 @ 5:40 am109 and 111: There seems to be some misapprehension about what is “direct” evidence and what is “circumstantial” evidence. “I saw seePea rob the First National Bank” is direct evidence. “The First National Bank was robbed; seePea’s fingerprints were found on the vault handle and bundles of cash with First National Bank bands were found in seePea’s house” is circumstantial evidence. Cirumstantial evidence is often more trustworthy than direct evidence. For example, volumes have been written on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Another example: Jailhouse snitches who testify about a defendant’s “confession” while awaiting trial are direct evidence. Some states have found them so unreliable that they exclude them in capital cases.
BTW: All the allegations against Jason Simpson I have read here are neither direct nor circumstantial evidence. They are speculation.
nk (8214ee) — 8/24/2006 @ 5:40 amThe estimable Mr ab Hugh wrote:
A recent Philadelphia murder was a case in which a 2 year old man, both drunk and stoned, thought that he had been “disrespected” by a 15 year old neighbor, at a party at around 10:00 PM. After stewing about it (aided with additional applications of drugs and alcohol), at 3:00 AM he entered the boy’s house and murdered him while the boy slept.
Yeah, rage can be sustained over time, and logic can always fly out the window.
Dana (1d5902) — 8/24/2006 @ 5:44 amRe: 120 , nk wrote:
There seems to be some misapprehension about what is “direct” evidence and what is “circumstantial” evidence.
Could be.
If PlonyA is filmed being at a 7-11 at 11:30a is that considered direct evidence?
If so, I would hope that direct would trump the circumstancial evidence of TheBank being robbed at 11:30a and PlonyA’s fingerprints being on the vault door and the cash being at PlonyA’s house.
As for Jason: I really have not paid any attention to that stream of thought, such conjencture to me has nothing to do with whether or not OJ should have been convicted.
seePea (fc6d5b) — 8/24/2006 @ 6:21 amMy girlfriend has the best line so far: O.J.’s best acting perforamce was the trial, including trying to put on shrunken leather gloves from dried blood over rubber gloves. Considering some of the Oscar’s handed out recently, O.J. deserves onr for his performace at the trial, with Judge Ito also getting one as Best-Supporting Dummy.
RickZ (dcb348) — 8/24/2006 @ 7:15 amIn response to Patterico’s comment that circumstantial evidence is equally as powerful as direct evidence, I said:
I don’t believe Patterico will respond and acknowledge the truth of my question because he wouldn’t want his quote that circumstantial evidence is worth less than direct evidence being used against him at trial.
And that’s wise.
[The quality of evidence doesn’t depend on whether it’s circumstantial or direct. It depends on the quality of the evidence. DNA is circumstantial. Fingerprints are circumstantial. A bank robber with green dye all over him from an exploded dye pack is circumstantial. Give me solid circumstantial evidence any day of the week. — P]
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/24/2006 @ 7:20 amSeePea, your comment #122: Yes, the video at the 7-11 is direct evidence but that is not the reason why it would trump the fingerprints and bundles of cash. It would be because it is credible and reliable. “My son, the defendant, was at home with me all evening” is just as much direct evidence but neither as credible nor as reliable for obvious reasons. Which also addresses Chris’s comments.
nk (d5dd10) — 8/24/2006 @ 7:46 amassistant devils advocate writes
I did not disparage circumstantial evidence. In fact I claimed that the circumstantial evidence places OJ at the scene of the crime. I don’t think there’s any reasonable doubt that OJ drove the Bronco to Bundy, was at the crime scene near the time of the murders, drove the Bronco home, jumped the fence, etc., etc., etc.
However, there is reasonable doubt that he committed the murders, and twelve people agreed with that. Furthermore, despite all the disparaging comments (some bordering on racial prejudice) written about the jury (both here and elsewhere), some of the jurors were interviewed about the case in subsequent years. Some here might be shocked to find that they were singularly unimpressed (as was I) with the glove “theatre” and believed that the glove fit OJ just fine. (There were other things as well that might shock people, but this one example is sufficient to show that the “normal” beliefs about the jury are simply wrong-headed.)
I repeat – I am a white, anglo-saxon conservative-libertarian-independent. I watched almost the entire case on TV, and I was convinced that the verdict was correct. That alone should put the lie to the “wrong jury” bleating.
It was not suppressed for that reason. Judge Ito ruled that Simpson had waived his right to clergyman-penitent privilege but disallowed the testimony anyway. I don’t know the grounds.
pablo, thank you for the compliment. I would point out to those eager to convict, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt – not up to and including a reasonable doubt.
I think it is beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was at the crime scene. Circumstantial evidence that cannot be reasonably explained in some other way places him there. However, presence at a crime scene does not prove commission of the crime. It may prove collusion but not commission.
Remember, when you are on a jury, you hold a fellow citizen’s life in your hands. It is not enough to say, “Gee, I’m certain he was there. I’m troubled by the lack of blood, but who else could it have been? Did he have an accomplice? What did he do with the knife? Where’s the bloody clothes? Ah, what the hell. He’s guilty.”
It’s beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a reason our system uses that standard. It’s because committing a fellow citizen to prison or the death sentence is an awful responsibility, and you’d better be certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you’re right. It is not enough to say, “I believe he did it.” When I was foreman on a jury, which found the defendant guilty of a crime, I felt a tremendous sense of loss when the vote was finally unanimous. Yet I was a strong advocate of the guilty verdict. My last words before leaving the jury room to deliver the verdict were, “God help us. We have just found a fellow citizen guilty of a crime.”
To prove OJ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you must deal with the blood evidence, and there simply is not enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the prosecution never dealt with that issue satisfactorily. Speculation about what he might have done, without any circumstantial evidence to buttress it, is speculation, nothing more. It’s not evidence, and it cannot be weighed in the balances of justice.
Some have belabored the DNA evidence. The prosecution’s own witness put the odds of it being someone else at “1 in 170 million”. There are almost 300 million people in the US. That means there is one, and possibly two, other people that could have contributed that DNA. Guess who one of those is!
That, and that alone, is reasonable doubt, and the jury was wise enough to realize that.
One last thing, so you can understand my thinking. A bloody sock was found in OJ’s bedroom. The blood was Nicole’s – without a doubt. Damning evidence, right?
The defense put on a very experienced witness who testified that the sock showed blood transferred from one side to the other, meaning it was impossible for the blood to have gotten there while the sock was being worn.
This creates a conundrum. How did Nicole’s blood get there? The defense says the police put it there. I say bullshit. There’s no evidence that the police deliberately framed OJ, despite the defense’s constant insinuations.
Yet I can’t explain how that blood could have gotten there. So what do I do? I throw out that piece of evidence. If I have no reasonable explanation for it, then I can’t use it for or against the defendant.
If someone has a reasonable explanation for it, I’d love to hear it.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/24/2006 @ 8:05 amre post 126:
I’m not quite the same demographic as antimedia, and I find it interesting that we would both would have acquitted but for somewhat different reasons.
So I do agree that “blaming” the jury pool is misguided by those who hated the verdict.
seePea (626f97) — 8/24/2006 @ 8:46 amseePea, I sure wish you’d articulate your reasons. I, at least, would find it very interesting.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/24/2006 @ 8:49 amanitmedia says:
The blood trail that followed the footprints was “consistent” with OJ’s blood, but it’s also consistent with Jason’s blood.
You continue to make this assertion without giving any basis for it. What DNA expert has said that? Without this assumption you’re whole theory goes up in smoke. Your whole theory hinges on it. As I pointed out earlier, a child gets half their DNA from each parent so there should be substantial differences. If you don’t have any basis for your claim then you should stop saying it, or you begin to seem like just another liar. But apparently you have to keep saying it, since you’re apparently committed to your conclusion.
Gerald A (10b9b3) — 8/24/2006 @ 8:52 amIf you think he was at the scene then:
1) He’s clearly lied.
2) He’s an accomplice, in which case he’s still guilty of murder, even if he didn’t swing the knife.
3) You’d need to place someone else there who actually did swing the knife, and the fact that Jason is the same size as OJ and would share some DNA characteristics doesn’t do it. The ones he doesn’t share would exclude him. There are thousands of people who fit that bill.
That was not a compliment. You’re arguing that beyond a reasonable doubt is not good enough by saying “You’d damn well better have more…”
Simple. The sock was still wet when he took it off and soaked through thereafter.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/24/2006 @ 8:52 amAntimedia,
I have one question – from someone who has not followed this case closely. Why on earth would OJ’s son want to kill Nichole? Was he sleeping with her or something? What would make him go into a murderous rage against Nichole? I don’t understand your insistence that Jason did it at all – unless he had some kind of sick sexual relationship with Nichole.
– GB
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/24/2006 @ 9:12 ampablo writes
Absolutely not! My “theory” is, the lack of blood evidence on OJ, his clothes and the Bronco must be plausibly explained. One explanation is, he didn’t commit the murders.
You haven’t convinced me that Jason’s DNA would be so dramatically different from OJ’s that none of OJ’s markers would be found in his DNA. You have to remember, at the time the evidence was examined, DNA research was not nearly as advanced as it is today.
Clearly he did
False. He could be an accomplice after the fact. He would therefore be guilty of concealing a crime, destroying evidence, etc., but not of murder.
Again, you’re assuming facts not in evidence. The DNA testing done on the evidence was not as precise as what we have today. Without expert testimony, you cannot exclude Jason.
Re: the bloody sock you write
False. According to the expert testimony at trial, it could not have happened that way. When the blood was dropped on the sock, the foot was not in it. Read the testimony.
GB asks
Jason had aspirations of being a top-flight chef. OJ was so proud of him, he purchased a complete set of chef’s knives, which Jason carried with him everywhere. (He kept them in his car.) On the night of the murders, Jason was in charge of the restaurant where he worked, and he had invited Nicole and the family to come down and eat a special dinner which he prepared. (That day was a special day – both Nicole and OJ had attended their children’s recital. Jason was also present.)
Nicole accepted Jason’s invitation, and Jason went all out to impress her/them. Nicole then stood him up. Jason was extremely angry (per other employees who were there) and closed the restaurant early (9:30 to 9:45 according to other employees, yet he filled out his timesheet for later that night – after the time of the murders.)
Nicole was killed about 10:15 (according to testimony at the trial) which gave Jason time to go to Nicole’s, confront her about staniding him up, explode in rage at her answer and attack her. Jason was well known for his uncontrollable rages and took medication to control them, which he had stopped taking several weeks before the murders.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/24/2006 @ 9:40 amAntimedia,
Thanks for answering my question. But, that answer seems much more far-fetched than OJ being guilty – based on the evidence.
And, even if your theory is correct, OJ is still a villian, helping his son get off scot-free. I don’t care what people say about love of parents for their children, I would not allow my child to get away with murder. I would love my child, and visit him in jail, but I would not help him cover it up. Moreover, help him remain free – with his murderuous, violent, character, to harm other people. All while ruining my own life and reputation and depriving 2 other families of justice. Seems very, very, very far-fetched.
Sorry, you almost had me questioning OJ’s guilt, until you gave that answer.
– GB
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/24/2006 @ 9:48 am@antimedia:
assistant devil's advocate (dc045f) — 8/24/2006 @ 9:52 amyou’re the guy mark geragos wanted to seat on the scott peterson jury, but was unable to find in stanislaus county. there are many jurors like you out there, it isn’t a moral failure, just a temporary, self-imposed reasoning disability.
in our private lives, intuition and inference are available to us for explanation of unfamiliar phenomena and making decisions to minimize risk and maximize reward. a significant subset of the population, perhaps cowed at the prospect of deliberating the defendant’s fate, will abandon these tools at the courthouse door and insist on testimony placing the knife in the hands of the killer. a defendant who has managed to get the victim alone, kill the victim and dump the body without being seen is virtually home free.
OK, I give up. Jason obviously did it, because antimedia can’t grasp the paternal and maternal contributions to a person’s DNA. That’s BRD, right there.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/24/2006 @ 9:59 amada writes
Translating into plain English – some people are just too dumb to grasp the obvious – and you’re one of them.
Thanks for the compliment. I find it persuasive. So now I’ll change my opinion. OJ is obviously guilty.
I’ve offered up plenty of reasonable doubt, none of which anyone has even attempted to address. The “arguments” used essentially are, “But it’s obvious who did it” and “I can explain that anomaly” or “but look at all the evidence – he’s obviously guilty – any fool can see that – why can’t you?”.
Fine by me. OJ was found not guilty. I really couldn’t care less if he is or not, yet people accuse me of having a pro-OJ bias simply because I offer an alternative view of the crime scene evidence. No, my bias is, I do not want our court system to find people guilty simply because “it’s obvious” but because it’s been proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have had “obviously” guilty people convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in this country, only to be exonerated later by DNA evidence that could not be refuted by the most vigorous intellectual arguments. That should give you pause. Sometimes things that are “obvious” aren’t.
Our system assumes your are innocent until proven guilty, and it is designed to bias the courts toward letting the guilty go free rather than risking the conviction of an innocent man. If you were ever the defendant in a trial, you would want the jurors to be skeptical of your guilt, wouldn’t you?
In the OJ case guilt beyond a reasonable doubt apparently wasn’t proven. If you want to believe that’s because blacks just couldn’t find it within themselves to find another black guilty “especially so soon after Rodney King” as some have said, you have that right. This is America, after all. But I hope you never serve on jury duty.
GB writes
GB, I completely agree with you. OJ’s behavior was reprehensible, and he should been tried for the coverup. He would most certainly have been convicted, in my estimation. But he certainly wouldn’t be the first parent with a severely misguided sense of loyalty.
pablo writes
It’s surprising to me how many people think ad hominem is an effective argumentation technique. Insulting or belittling me does nothing to win an argument except among others who are similarly biased.
I’ve been doing some research on DNA, because I’m far from an expert on the technology of identifying individuals by their DNA. The claim that a human gets 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother and would be therefore be dramatically different from the father’s DNA seems far too simplistic to me. (Do we have any DNA experts here?)
I am certain that, if you put a father and son’s samples side by side, you could tell them apart with modern technology. I am not certain if the technology that was being used in the Simpson case was capable of that or if the samples were degraded enough that both father and son would look similar to the tester.
The tests that were done for the trial were not nearly as accurate as today’s are, and Jason’s DNA was never compared to the samples, so we can’t possibly know if his would “match”.
Since I’ve obviously frustrated and pissed off a lot of you and I’ve already presented my case, I’ll leave the floor for those who feel compelled to tell the world how stupid and biased I am. There seems to be plenty of them around, which tells me that they are emotionally invested in confirming OJ’s guilt, regardless of what the evidence may or may not tell a reasonable person.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/24/2006 @ 11:08 amSorry, that’s not ad hominem. Snarky, sure. But not ad hom.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/24/2006 @ 11:13 amAntimedia,
“Since I’ve obviously frustrated and pissed off a lot of you and I’ve already presented my case, I’ll leave the floor for those who feel compelled to tell the world how stupid and biased I am”
All you’ve presented is theories as to why we should disregard each piece of evidence against OJ. I.e., you have presented an alternative theory as to why that evidence got to where it was found and what the evidence means. And there is quite a bit of such evidence that must be explained away.
For instance, you present your opinion that there IS NO WAY that OJ could have done the kilings without, apparently, filling up his vehicle with blood. For instance, you discount that he likely had access to Nichole’s house (wasn’t the door found open?), and could easily have taken a sheet or something, laid it on his car seat, and driven off, then throwing out his clothes and the sheet. There are many plausible potential explanations as to why there was not MORE (remember, there was some) blood in his vehicle.
You also present us w/ your opinion that he could not have committed the murders in the time frame. tht is your opinion, but I don’t think you are right, and it is very unpersuasive.
That is a big difference then presenting any evidence that OJ is innocent, and arguing that there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You have basically been arguing that he is innocent, and that his son is the killer. If you narrowed your argument to just claiming that the gov’t failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, you might have a case.
To try to explain away all of the evidence with crazy theories, personal opinions, and denial of the actual sceince of DNA, is not persuasive. I’m guess I speak for most attorneys and those who prosecute crimes when I say that the evidence in this case is pretty overwhelming as to OJ’s guilt – particularly when compared to evidence in other murder trials.
does this mean that I can say with 100% absolute certainty that he did it? No. but, I would convict if I were a juror. I think it is beyond a reasonable doubt, and none of your theories has persauded me otherwise. I asked you about the Jason motive, b/c I was wondering where you were going with it – but that was just ridiculous as far as motives go.
1) you are claiming that the murder was pre-meditated by Jason, otherwise, why would he have falsified his time-card when he left the restaurant that night?
2) you are claiming that Jason called his father to the crime scene. Again, very unlikely if Jason had just murdered two people.
3) you are claiming that OJ did not have time to do everything Patterico claims he did, but did have time to do everything you claim he did (i.e., go to the crime scene, get his gloves bloody, shoes bloody, spill some of his blood, do some kind of cleanup with Jason, and return home) – which is pretty much doing the same things. So, you are basically admitting OJ had the time to do it – thus destroying your own argument.
4) You don’t even address OJ’s guilt-like behavior up to the point of his arrest. Or, are yo claiming it was all a clever cover-up for his son? Again, does not even remotely pass the smell test. What, he set it all up w/ the hope of geting off, or he was willing to go to jail for his murdering son?
5) you imply that the LAPD and AD’s office were so out to get OJ, that they, to this day (as there is no statute of limitations on murder and they could still investigate Jason) refuse to look at Jason as the murderer. You have not said it outright, but you are basically implying a pretty large conspiracy against OJ here. Again, does not pass the smell test.
6) You seem to claim that OJ was so meticulous that he would not have left the glove, etc., if he had done the murders, but that he could have made those mistakes if he was simply covering for his son. Either he was so perfect that he never made mistakes or he is not. You can’t have it both ways.
Yes, you’ve made some interesting arguments against this piece of evidence or that, but taken as a whole, it reads like a conspiracy theory. You have to believe that the whole thing is so complicated that nobody could get to the bottom of it.
Bottom line, I agree with Patterico, in that I doubt this particular jury would have convicted OJ if they saw him do it.
– GB
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/24/2006 @ 12:11 pmRe: circumstantial evidence…
Your point is made. The error was mine in understanding the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence.
Chris from Victoria, BC (5ab65d) — 8/24/2006 @ 12:18 pmGB, since you’ve presented substantive arguments, I’ll respond to those.
The blood would have soaked through the sheet and been found on the car seat. It was not. There was very little blood in the Bronco.
I take that as an admission that there is room for reasonable doubt. 🙂
Did I say he filled out his time sheet before he committed the murders? I don’t believe I said that. The facts are, the time sheet was filled out falsely. I don’t know when it was filled out. As to whether or not Jason premeditated the murders, I doubt it. He was/is far too impulsive.
Unlikely because???
He is guilty. That’s why he behaved like a guilty person. And I think the latter (willing to go to jail) is far more likely than the former. In fact, I believe that OJ was convinced he would be found guilty.
Out to get OJ? Not at all. Convinced he was the guilty party? Obviously! That was decided within 24 hours of the murders. A large conspiracy? That’s silly.
As far as going after Jason goes, the DA’s office has been presented with the results of Dear’s investigation and to date they have not investigated. Why should they? They’re convinced OJ is guilty, and to investigate Jason would be an admission they’ve been wrong all along. That’s political suicide. It wouldn’t happen even if Jason confessed.
Of course you can! In the former case you are positing that a man premeditated a murder including disposing of the evidence of the crime.
In the latter case you’re positing that a man is caught by surprise, under time pressure because he has a flight to catch, and has to think quickly, spur of the moment, decide what to do, etc., etc.
Those are two entirely different scenarios, and the second easily explains forgetfulness and oversights.
And yet Dear figured it out, and I figured it out. And I know of other people who figured it out as well.
I guess we’re all geniuses??
Or perhaps, just perhaps, we don’t have the same tunnel vision as detectives zeroing in on “their man” and prosecuting attorneys who must ignore alternative explanations because they take away from the power of their arguments?
Let’s be honest. 90% (or better) of the time, the husband did it. Case closed. But that doesn’t excuse not doing a thorough investigation that closes all the holes and removes reasonable doubt.
It seems the LA attorneys are convinced that black jurors can’t be fair in the trial of a black man. I don’t know why that is, but I submit it’s a false vision bred by some factors that I’m unaware of. From where I sit, the case is far from closed.
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/24/2006 @ 12:44 pmThis site talks about DNA identification in words even I can understand. It describes the odds of two people having the same DNA profile (as mapped for forensic purposes) as extremely slim but not as non-existent. So antimedia does have a colorable argument.
(I also just found that only one tenth of one percent of DNA differs from person to person. In other words we are all 99.9% identical. That’s almost metaphysical. We are all brothers under the skin.)
nk (06f5d0) — 8/24/2006 @ 12:53 pmanitmedia says: You haven’t convinced me that Jason’s DNA would be so dramatically different from OJ’s that none of OJ’s markers would be found in his DNA. You have to remember, at the time the evidence was examined, DNA research was not nearly as advanced as it is today.
You’ve been making statements that Jason’s DNA WOULD show up as the same as OJ’s. You’ve been repeatedly asserting this like it’s an established fact. Now you’re reversing the logic, and it’s up to us to demonstrate that they WOULDN’T be the same. So in other words you really have no idea whether they would likely show up the same for forensic purposes using the technology back then.
There’s no reason to assume they likely would be the same and you haven’t given one. You make an assumption, and everyone’s supposed to accept it. Wrong. Nor would it be appropriate in a “reasonable doubt” context to make such an assumption. Reasonable doubt has nothing to do with making up facts.
In fact your whole idea about Jason wanting to kill Nicole and having beaten her has no facts to back it up. Another assumption out of thin air.
Gerald A (fe1f90) — 8/24/2006 @ 1:14 pmAnti –
The blood would have soaked through the sheet and been found on the car seat. It was not. There was very little blood in the Bronco.
Because you say so? Are you a sheet expert? A blood soak expert? How long does it take for blood to soak through a blanket – which he could have easily grabbed? More than 5 minutes I’ll wager. Again, you are making assertions that are not even realistic to support your “alternate” theories and discount the evidence – there was blood in the vehicle.
I take that as an admission that there is room for reasonable doubt.
There is always room for reasonable doubt, before the evidence is viewed. Not so much as applied to the evidence against OJ.
you are claiming that the murder was pre-meditated by Jason, otherwise, why would he have falsified his time-card when he left the restaurant that night?
Did I say he filled out his time sheet before he committed the murders? I don’t believe I said that. The facts are, the time sheet was filled out falsely. I don’t know when it was filled out. As to whether or not Jason premeditated the murders, I doubt it. He was/is far too impulsive.
You apparently know Jason very well – I’m assuming its based on the one book you keep quoting which seems to have you convinced. You have constructed an elaborate scenario devoted to him, based on an incredibly unlikely motive.
you are claiming that Jason called his father to the crime scene. Again, very unlikely if Jason had just murdered two people.
Unlikely because???
Because people don’t usually call their parents to their murder scenes. I’m not saying such a thing is impossible, but again, all of your theories are far more improbable than OJ being guilty. Occam’s razor.
You don’t even address OJ’s guilt-like behavior up to the point of his arrest. Or, are yo claiming it was all a clever cover-up for his son? Again, does not even remotely pass the smell test. What, he set it all up w/ the hope of geting off, or he was willing to go to jail for his murdering son?
He is guilty. That’s why he behaved like a guilty person. And I think the latter (willing to go to jail) is far more likely than the former. In fact, I believe that OJ was convinced he would be found guilty.
Again, your theories that OJ would go to jail to keep his violent, murderous son free, is far more implausible than OJ being the guilty party. I’m not sure I understand why you seek to discredit one scenario, that is highly plausible, for another, that is highly implausible.
you imply that the LAPD and AD’s office were so out to get OJ, that they, to this day (as there is no statute of limitations on murder and they could still investigate Jason) refuse to look at Jason as the murderer. You have not said it outright, but you are basically implying a pretty large conspiracy against OJ here. Again, does not pass the smell test.
Out to get OJ? Not at all. Convinced he was the guilty party? Obviously! That was decided within 24 hours of the murders. A large conspiracy? That’s silly.
Yes, it is silly, but to claim nobody in the LAPD or DA’s office is willing to look at Jason, b/c they are ALL convinced OJ did it, implies a conspiracy. If the evidence against Jason is as strong as you believe it to be, the LAPD and DA’s office, not to mention the 2 families, have to be purposefully ignoring it out of their hatred for OJ. Again, highly implausible. Making your entire argument, silly.
You seem to claim that OJ was so meticulous that he would not have left the glove, etc., if he had done the murders, but that he could have made those mistakes if he was simply covering for his son. Either he was so perfect that he never made mistakes or he is not. You can’t have it both ways.
Of course you can! In the former case you are positing that a man premeditated a murder including disposing of the evidence of the crime.
In the latter case you’re positing that a man is caught by surprise, under time pressure because he has a flight to catch, and has to think quickly, spur of the moment, decide what to do, etc., etc.
Those are two entirely different scenarios, and the second easily explains forgetfulness and oversights.
And having just murdered 2 people – the Ron murder likely unplanned, with little time to clean up and get back for your alibi, would not make someone (even someone as perfect as you claim OJ to be) rushed, nervous, jittery, forgetful, etc? Again, your argument is more implausible than OJ being guilty, and you should look at Occam’s razor.
Yes, you’ve made some interesting arguments against this piece of evidence or that, but taken as a whole, it reads like a conspiracy theory. You have to believe that the whole thing is so complicated that nobody could get to the bottom of it.
And yet Dear figured it out, and I figured it out. And I know of other people who figured it out as well.
I guess we’re all geniuses??
No – the opposite. Like most conspiracy theorists, this requires you to believe implausible things and then believe the rest of us are blind and ignorant for not seeing it. Each of your explanations to explain away the evidence against OJ is more implausible than the last. Each of your explanations requires more of a leap of faith than believing the obvious, that all of the evidence points to OJ for the reason that he is guilty.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, we don’t have the same tunnel vision as detectives zeroing in on “their man” and prosecuting attorneys who must ignore alternative explanations because they take away from the power of their arguments?
Ahh, everyone who looks at the mountain of evidence pointing to OJ and believes he did it is closed minded and can’t see the light. Again, this is the very heart of most conspiracy theorist’s mind-set.
Let’s be honest. 90% (or better) of the time, the husband did it. Case closed. But that doesn’t excuse not doing a thorough investigation that closes all the holes and removes reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt has been removed for reasonable people. The standard you are using is 100% proof at to OJ, not reasonable doubt. You arguments are both unpersuasive, and are fairly “conspiracy” minded. Again, you make some fairly “out-there” arguments about what could have happened. I think Occom’s razor is best applied here, which is that the most probable answer is probably true, i.e., OJ did it. Your theories are far more implausible.
Obviously, we won’t convince you. However, none of your arguments are rational enough to convince us.
It seems the LA attorneys are convinced that black jurors can’t be fair in the trial of a black man. I don’t know why that is, but I submit it’s a false vision bred by some factors that I’m unaware of. From where I sit, the case is far from closed.
As a practicing attorney who currently litigates civil rights cases – defending police departments in false arrest / excessive force claims – I can tell you that, unfortunately, a large part of the urban black population is going to side against the police no matter what evidence you present them (and, regardless of the race of the police in question). There are many reasons for this, some good, some bad – but it is a fact. This is not a mystery to attorneys who practice this type of legal work or criminal work. It is unfortunate, but it is true.
– GB
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/24/2006 @ 1:15 pmThe more I think about it, the more I’m starting to think antimedia is having us on. It’s hard to believe he really believes the theory he is spoutin’.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/24/2006 @ 1:22 pmAnd, before you ask me why some things are more implausbile than others, it is based on experience and common sense.
If you don’t agree that those things are more implausible, then there is really no way to argue the point, except for to point things out like, not many instances of children calling their parents to their fresh murder scene. But, aside from that, you can’t really back up a claim of implausible with anything other than common experience.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/24/2006 @ 1:26 pmGB, you certainly represent the majority opinion. You think the jury found OJ not guilty for racist reasons and you think any alternative explanations for the evidence are too implausible to even consider.
If OJ were in jail, you’d be 100% right.
As it is, you attack me, a laymen using memories of a case from 10 years ago and claim that my “theory” is implausible. I’m certain you’d have no interest in testing your beliefs against actual detective work, and you obviously haven’t read what I’ve written (quite extensively here) or you would know I thought this way long before I read anyone else’s “version” of the story. In fact, I decided OJ was not guilty toward the end of the trial, because there were way too many unanswered questions.
I’ll give you the same challenge I gave Patrick (which he has not yet accepted.) If you will promise to read William Dear’s book, OJ is Guilty, But Not of Murder, with an open mind I will buy you a copy and have it shipped to you. I can assure you, it is not based on wild conspiracy theories or implausible frameups by the LAPD, racist cops planting evidence or any of that nonsense.
Who knows. You might actually have an enlightenment. Or, you might reject Dear’s investigation out of hand. But at least you would have had to deal with the facts that he uncovered, none of which LAPD’s finest even bothered to check out. It might even make you think what “Guilty!” really means.
I don’t think there’s anything I can add nor do I think it would be worth adding, so I’ll go back to blogging at my own site instead of chewing up all of Patrick’s bandwidth.
[I’ll read it. And I appreciate the comments. I’ll ask Hodgman about it. patterico AT gmail DOT com. — P]
antimedia (1cee5d) — 8/24/2006 @ 2:50 pmAnti, I’ve gotta ask: are you writing a book on this case?
Dana (1d5902) — 8/24/2006 @ 4:36 pmNo they are not entirely different, nor does either exclude the other. The minute Ron Goldman walks up, scenario one suddenly morphs into scenario two.
You keep repeating that, but that doesn’t make it true. No one is attacking you that I can see, only your willingness to take the facts to the circus. Your theory is implausible. Were there some evidence to support it, then it might not be so implausible.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/24/2006 @ 5:20 pmRe: the reasons why I wouldn’t have voted for conviction – I’m of the opinion that blog pages belongs to the blog owner and the owner is entitled to drive the discussion. I was disappointed to read that Patterico does not plan to really review the case as it happened with his insights as to what was going on. I was planning revealing more of my reasons as Patterico went along, to point out to him why it was not such a sure-thing that a conviction should have occured. To me, this is not quite the place to get into personal insults trading while arguing about what should have happened.
Suffice to say that I think the prosecution committed malpractice (maybe on purpose) and should have been fired.
seePea (9a19be) — 8/24/2006 @ 6:28 pmMarcia Clark should certainly not have been rewarded for her screw-up(s) and failure by receiving paid television appearances.
I do notice that this is as captive and pro-Patterico/prosecution audience as he could ever hope to get, that he’s had several years and numerous books worth of information and hindsight to “prepare”, and no formal skilled legal opposition, just doubting Thomases in his jury, most of whom believe that O.J. probably was guilty, and he still doesn’t seem to be convincing.
I’m thinking this may be a case of prosecutor blindness… while his conclusions might be right, the degree of proof the average person regards as “beyond a reasonable doubt”, considering the prosecution/police foul-ups, may be distressingly high for him.
And this is the prosecution case. Call our debate here jury deliberations (with the prosecutor able to follow along and join in where he feels we’ve gone off the rails). The highly capable defense team hasn’t said a word.
Still you couldn’t get a conviction out of this ringer croud. It’s not looking good, Patterico.
[Utter silliness. First, I never said I was setting out to make the prosecution case. Second, the naysayers here have said plenty of things that would have kept them off the jury — if that’s what this was about, and it’s not. As I said, it was about some personal insights, nothing more. — P]
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/24/2006 @ 7:07 pm3 minutes, depending upon cross traffic situation on San Vicente and Sunset, plus how quicklty you want to hit the speed bumps on some of the streets if they were there at the time. I believe OJ is guily as sin. Anyone who doesn’t needs to change their meds.
NeoCon Don (a64392) — 8/24/2006 @ 7:28 pmAntimedia:
Antimedia, for God’s sake, why do you keep going on about this? How many times need it be pounded into your head? FATHERS AND SONS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME DNA.
The son gets half his DNA from the 23 chromosomes contributed by his father. He also gets 23 chromosomes — half the DNA — contributed by his mother. The mother is unrelated to the father (except in Kentucky and West Virginia); while sons are closer in DNA to their fathers than “two strangers” would be, they’re not even as close as O.J. would be to his brother and sister.
And even those two could not be confused with each other. Certain a father and son could not be.
If the DNA testing found that the DNA matched O.J.’s, there is no need to compare it to Jason’s… because matching OJ’s DNA necessarily means that it does not match Jason’s DNA.
Is any of this getting through? Your repetitive whining about this is exactly the same as if, confronted by the defendant’s fingerprints on gun, you demanded to know whether they had also compared those same fingerprints to the defendant’s mother. After all, maybe they have the same fingerprints; they’re related, aren’t they?
The blood at the scene was Orenthal James Simpson’s blood. It was not Jason Simpson’s blood. If he didn’t cut his finger until he reached Chicago, then how the hell did his own blood get onto the crime scene?
Do you have any answer for that?
I need to explain one more thing to you. In order to convict, the jury must find that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt… not that he is guilty beyond all imaginary fantasy doubts.
The blood evidence alone is enough to convict him beyond all reasonable doubt. Your imaginary fantasy doubt — that maybe Jason did it, leaving no trace of himself; but then he called Pop, who came over, managed to cut himself, managed to get blood on himself, his car, and his house, all to protect his son — is not “reasonable,” because there is not a single, solitary shred of evidence to support it.
Where is the evidence of a second intruder, Antimedia?
Where is it? You have not even hinted that any such evidence existed. You may as well say that Ron and Nicole were murdered by H.G. Wells’ Martians: there is as much evidence for that as for Jason being the real culprit.
So on the one hand, we have a mountain of evidence against O.J. Simpson. On the other hand, we have your hand-waving imaginary fantasy that maybe Jason did it, but he wore a suck-suit and levitated, thus left not a trace of himself behind. But he somehow tricked his father into leaving evidence all over the place.
Gee, as a juror, which of those two scenarios would I believe? I guess I’ll have to ponder that one.
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 8/24/2006 @ 10:36 pmAntimedia and allies:
Here is the point about the “Jason” hypothesis: if the claim is “I was there at the scene of the crime and had a chat with the real killer, and I decided to cover up for him… but I wasn’t the one who did the actual killing” — then bloody hell, that is an affirmative defense if ever I heard one.
In an affirmative defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove it, not on the prosecutor to knock it down.
For example, “self defense” is an affirmative defense in a murder case; that means that if the defendant raises that, he must himself prove that he was in legitimate and reasonable fear for his life. The prosecutor doesn’t have to prove that he wasn’t.
Claiming that you were present at the scene during the murder or before anybody else was there, and that you interacted with the murder, but that you were not he, requires that the defendant actually present evidence that it was somebody else.
You lot have presented not one shred of evidence that somebody else was even present at the crime scene, let alone that this little man who wasn’t there was the real culprit.
Since you have signally failed to make that case (or even to attempt it), there is no point arguing this diversion further until and unless you do present such evidence.
The burden is on you to prove it; not on us to refute what hasn’t even been propounded.
Dafydd
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 8/24/2006 @ 10:52 pmAntimedia,
it is you, not I, who are not reading my comments. I have pointed out the absurdity of your arguments. that is all. What does “open mind” mean to you? that you are right and I am wrong? I pondered your pet theories, found them to be ridiculously contrived conspiracy mongering, and explained why.
You have responded by re-asserting (as fact) your theories again. You have not explained why what I stated is wrong. You can’t simply keep repeating the same tired arguments that have been shown to be foolish and unpersuasive, and then attack everyone who disagrees with you as “close-minded” and “unwilling to do detective work”.
I never said that the jurors were racist. Since when is being a police officer a race? I said that many in the urban black community dislike and distrust the police, and will vote against the police in any criminal or civil case, regardless of the evidence. that is a fact. Deal with it, don’t just write a pithy comment. there was along time when a white jury in the south would convict a black defendant regardless of the evidence. Do you doubt that is true? why is this so hard to believe for you then?
Again, all of your arguments are riddled w/ the conspiracy theorists mindset. The police, the browns, the Goldmans, the DAs, me, Patterico, almost any other attorney I’ve ever discussed this case with, are all “blinded” by our belief that OJ is guilty and unwiling to look at the “truth” that you and a few other “enlightened” individuals possess. Never mind the idiotic theories one has to believe to accept the “truth.”
your argument is thus:
1) OJ couldn’t have done it b/c there was NOT ENOUGH blood in the vehicle. (I will ignore any and all plausible reasons for this)
2) OJ couldn’t have done it b/c he is so perfectly meticulous that he would never have made a single mistake – regardless of the circumstances.
2(a) – corrollary to the above – OJ did in fact make those mistakes b/c he was so worked up by seeing the dead bodies after his son called him to view his fresh brutal murder scene. “Hey dad, come see what I just did to your ex-wife who you allegedly still love.”
3) OJ did not have time to commit the murders.
3(a) OJ had time to go to the scene after his son called him and do any number of things there, just not enough time to commit the murders.
4) OJ’s DNA matched the killer’s dna – but ignore this b/c OJ’s son’s dna MAY have matched OJ’s dna close enough to come up with this result. there is absolutely no evidence of this – but I’ll take this leap of faith b/c I am “enlightened.”
5) OJ’s son owned the exact same pair of shoes as OJ and had th exact same size feet.
6) OJ’s son has the same size hand as OJ.
7) OJ acted guilty and was seeking to flee w/ cash and a disguise, not b/c he was guilty of the killings – but b/c he had been to the scene after the fact.
8) OJ went through the trial and was willing to ruin his life, reputation and go to jail for his son Jason. Although this does not match up at all with what the public has seen of OJ’s character and attitude toward his children I’ll believe this b/c it fits my “enlightened” theory.
9) I won’t call it a conspiracy against OJ, but the DA’s, the Browns, the Goldmans, the LAPD and others refuse to see the “truth” for some unspecified reason. ONly an enlightend few are able to see the “truth.”
– dude. Please. One does not need an “open mind” to see that your theory is ridiculous. It sold some books for your favorite author – good for him. but it is not even remotely reasonable.
– GB
Great Banana (b8935f) — 8/25/2006 @ 5:46 amI, too, followed the trial daily, and came to the same conclusions (in that the circumstantial evidence points more strongly to Jason than O.J.) as Antimedia by much the same reasoning, but in my later years I have found that my memory is unreliable as to the facts of the case.
So thank you, Antimedia, for so objectively and calmly debating the pros and cons of the case, and for recommending Mr. Dear’s book on the subject. It will help [in ways I’m unable to articulate myself] to explain [to someone important to me] why I’m convinced Jason is the guilty party.
CayuteKitt (f444f2) — 8/26/2006 @ 2:22 amThanks, CayuteKitt. I admit my memory is not that good. It’s been ten years since the trial and several years since I read Dear’s book. I don’t think, however, anything will change. As you can see, the attitude of LA lawyers is that OJ is guilty and there’s no point at all in investigating Jason. It’s too bad, because if they did, and they were able to prove that Jason committed the murders, they could also try OJ for covering up the crime. Then they would finally get what they want – to see OJ behind bars.
But that, I’m afraid, is not to be.
I may take the time to reread Dear’s book, now that the memories have been dredged up again.
antimedia (3b4a00) — 8/26/2006 @ 3:53 pmYou know, there are also plenty of books written that demonstrate conclusively that OJ did it. Maybe you should read one of those.
I’m not an LA lawyer, by the way. I don’t have to live there or work there to be able to see the evidence for what it is in this case, and see the conspiracy theories promulgated by others for what they are.
What is sad is that someone like you could eventually serve on a jury and add another injustice to our legal system by being unable to see the evidence rationally. It is your attitude which perfectly sums up what Patterico is trying to point out – that there are some people who can’t be convinced of something regardless of the evidence presented and how overwhelming it is. there are many reasons for this – racial bais, bias against the police, or just a mind prone to conspiracy theories. But, they all lead to miscarriages of justice.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/28/2006 @ 8:23 amCould someone on this forum excplain a couple of things to me?
Manny (30c97c) — 9/5/2006 @ 1:29 amFirst, The DNA under Nicole’s finger nails that were neither OJ’s, Nicole’s or Ron Goldman’s.
And two, the cuts and buises on Ron Goldman’s toes that suggested or showed that he was fighting back and stricking back at someone or something.
I believe the glove evidence ALONE should have been enough to convict OJ.
“Rubin, testifying for a fourth time in the trial, said that only 300 pairs of the gloves were manufactured, and that between 200 and 240 were sold, in 1990, all of those at Bloomingdale’s.
The state contends that Nicole Brown Simpson bought her husband two pairs of Aris gloves — color and size unspecified by the sales slip — in December 1990.”
The gloves were sold ONLY at Bloomingdales, in NYC, on the other side of the continent. There is only ONE Bloomingdales. There were only 300 gloves and the other unsold pairs were returned to the manufacturer.
In a country of 300 million, one store in a city of 8 million people, TWO pairs of only 200-240 pairs of rare Isotoner gloves EVER sold make there way to the Simpson household, 2600 miles from where they were purchased to a city of 3.5 million people and one pair, soaked in the victim’s blood, is separated at each end of a murder trail 5 driving minutes apart.
If I had been on that jury, I would have made those people understand the rarity of those gloves and how far they had to travel to get to each end of that blood trail.
Speller (120ab2) — 9/11/2006 @ 2:14 pmFirst time poster, have read all comments. Originally believed O.j. did it–and he may have. However, the relative paucity of blood found in the Bronco; coupled with no idea how he could have disposed of the bloody clothes (and don’t you just know the police looked high and low)—does make me wonder.
There were no eye-witnesses, so no one can truly say how the two murders happened–but from the autospy it appears Ron put up a hell of a fight—bruises on his hands–maybe even landed some blows. And yes, O.J. was still in decent shape but so was Ron–worked out regularly and MUCH younger. His fatal last minutes surely included some brief but intense hand-to-hand. I am convinced the killer would have been soaked in blood—lierally soaked.
I have read the book suggesting Jason.And while it is not a perfect book and does not answer all the questions—it is food for thought. I always thought O.J’s famous ride and demeanor in the courtroom were those of a guilty man—except maybe just guilty of knowing the real facts and not sharing them.
Dick
M60Dick (44c540) — 11/29/2006 @ 9:14 amIf you think the glove evidence alone shoukd have convicted OJ, then I am glad you are not a prosecutor.
Someone else was there.
A theory about the crime, which fits the evidence better than what the prosecution presented, was that OJ and an unknown accomplice arrived at the scene. Nicole was lured out by OJ, and she was killed quickly.
Then Ronald Goldman appeared at the scene, and the accomplice killed him in a bloody struggle.
This would explain why OJ did not have bruises on his body, and why very little blood was found in his Ford Bronco. The accomplice did the bloody work, so OJ was not exposed to that much blood at all.
Of course, the jury could not consider this, since this is not what the prosecution said happened.
Michael Ejercito (0407a6) — 12/1/2006 @ 8:47 pmI made that drive yesterday from Bundy to Rockingham in the middle of the day AND caught all the red lights. It still took me under 6 minutes.
Matlock (4e3256) — 1/25/2007 @ 1:11 pmAntiMedia;
Uncontainable_Spirit (7b1c13) — 5/11/2007 @ 4:25 pmExcellent job. Keep up the good work. I know it kills some people to see that they are absolutely incorrect about a thing. There is definitely reasonable doubt.
The jury said not guilty – get over it. Mr. Simpson could not have tracked through blood, had it splattered all over him and left no trace of blood in his Bronco or his home or any fence that he was supposed to have climbed over to get back in his house. The jury figured this out the first day of trial by using common sense.
the jury said not guilty - get over it (c0abaa) — 5/17/2007 @ 8:39 amThanks to both site host and antimedia for at least providing a debate. Debate used loosely. When I was in college, scholarly analysis and classes and debate competitions were not expected to deteriorate into what the “Hang the nigga” side has done here, which is to substitute logic and straightforward response and reasoning for attacks on the opposing party’s intellingence and slurs. This is dissapointing because it distracts from clear, open-minded discussion of just relevant facts and/or theories. This is a typical tactic of lawyers, not to say OJ’s attorneys and the proscutors both used it, but it really has no place in a real intelligent debate, so I hope the anti-OJ here can refrain from it and rely on reason as antimedia has done. You cannot search for truth while labeling anyone who disagrees or presents admitted hypothesis or whose reasoning is different than your own as “nuts, conspiracy theorist,” etc etc. that in itself becomes racist and demeaning, since it assumes a false sense of arrogant superiority over others whose cultural, political, rational approach to life and thought is simply not the same as your. That is why lawyers are not juries. Juries are 12 people. If this person who cannot deliver a rebuttal without trying tom insult the intelligence of antimedia for is so intelligent, then obviously we need to discard juries altogether and just ask him/her to serve on the jury and save the costs and irritation of asking any other human for an opinion.
However, what one person thinks is reasonable and obvious according to their life experience is not the same as another, therefore, we have 12 entirely different thinking processes going on deciding what is reality and thank goodnes,, not just this Daydd or antimedia. There is an historically established racist/cultural arrogance apparent here, assuming that it is invalid for black jurors (not all were even black) are all conspiracy theorists, nuts, too stupid to think as well as anti-Ojs (mostly white) and make legitimate decisions. This all insults the intelligence of me, for one, whose IQ and scientific and logical abilities I would bet are possibly equal to anyone’s. And I also have many logical reasons for questioning whether OJ Simpson killed the two. As do many professional, educated, not black, not “nuts” people, including my mother, a professional nurse. Myself being top in my class and a professional writer and newspaper editor. People like me are capable of examining these issues as is antimedia without attacking in petty, unnecessary ways those who disagree. This is how I was taught to respectfully and creatively think and discuss with others, so it is dissapointing that neither the attorneys in this case or websites like this can rise to the level of a good college class, where a professor would encourage both sides without trying to intimidate or harass either. I will continue to visit the site if the Bill O’Reilly factor can be eliminated, since both sides are obviously well-researched and devoted.
I don’t say this because I side with antimedia; I am still questioning, not having been present at the time of the crimes and having reason to consider some aspects still worth investigating before a conclusion is reached in my own mind.
Anyone who has read good mysteries, done a puzzle, and even told good jokes or even taken science knows that things are not as they appear often, and that what science and logic conclude one day can change the next when another piece of evidence or jigsaw is added. Although the anti-OJ case is made strongly, and anyone can see that we have a puzzle with 100 pieces all pointing to OJ seemingly, the point antimedia is making and should be credited for making is that SO MANY OF THESE PIECES HAVE MUD ON THEM that the picture remains incomplete enough to identify it as a portrait of him. Other people disagree and do not see this mud, or are satisfied that even though we have only 100 out of 200 pieces, the picture looks so much like OJ that it must be him. However, when the mud is cleared off those pieces and the other missing ones are found, we find that the pciture could also be that of his son, Jason, or someone else. You cannot think with your mind closed and without healthy skepticism, speculation, and hypothesis, Sherlock Holmes would have never sold a book or solved a mystery.
antimedia’s points are what the investigators and prosecutors and police were paid to examine, and it is absolutely legitimate that we look everywhere the police did not. So many witnesses were just ignored, the possibility that Simpson did go to the crime scene but did not kill them was never considered. If you want to think in a truly scientific and critical manner, you cannot say that because 20 people wearing pink have HIV, wearing pink causes AIDS. You MUST not assume that was is clear to you is the answer, as this site’s host has asked me to do. You must be so arrogant even if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck. It may not be a duck, after all. SInce a significant number of people on death row (disproportionatley black) have been found out to be INNOCENT after being proved guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” apparently we are not as reasonable as we think or as correct, are we?
A. No one has stated yet that they did in fact kill 2 people in the manner in this case, so little data has been provided on if it is in fact possible to do it without getting blood all over a white car and do it in this timeline. Just saying it can be done has not been backed up. You would have to physically do an experiment or 10 and to my knowledge no one has killed 2 struggling for their lives people in this debate, just animals which no one said weighed over a hundred pounds and were struggling like Ron Goldman being held against the body or in relation to the body in the way these bodies were.
My mother, a lifetime surgical nurse, said that was the single thing that stood out in her mind most as making her doubt what looked like a strong case. She has worked in Corrections Facilities also and so has expert knowledge of violence and medical issues relevant. She and doctors and medical personnel she knows agree that is virtually IMPOSSIBLE that any human being, no matter how drugged up, which there is not evidence I know of OJ was, could slash these arteries, throats, bodies while the bodies were struggling and get in a car shortly afterward without leaving a great deal of blood all over everything. Mom has had to spend all night cleaning up after surgeries and assaults, and blood when it is spilled like this does not just disappear into the amounts found. It doesn’t. She has to take showers, change completely, it is a major ordeal.
Since there were no blood marks that anyone identified which were consistent with OJ Simpson moving in the bloody shoes in a manner that indicated he was walking into Nicole’s to shower, changing out of a “jumpsuit,” or getting blood off of him which process would cause patterns of foot movements and blood to be left in Nicole’s house (even a garbage bag would have blood on it from handling it which would transfer to the Bronco in more than the small amounts found) and where he walked, and no blood traces were found in OJ’s shower drains, I would need the prosecution to prove exactly how this was accomplished which thery did not address and neither has this site. If there is a demonstration that has ever been physically done of someone killing two animals which are biologically similar enough to the victims enough to spill blood in a similar manner while struggling, and getting into a white Bronco after somehow getting the blood and clothes off so it doesn’t get all over, I would concede it would remove a lot of doubt. It sound pretty creepy to try but while they’re butchering pigs, maybe they should try doing it the way the killer did it and see how easy it is to do what you say he could have done.
How fast does blood soak through a white sheet? Apparently the person who asked is not a woman who ever had a period! Hate to gross you out, but all women know you can’t sit on anything with blood on you. Sorry, that’s why they have real people on juries. We all can’t know everything, can we? That is just ONE piece of the puzzle that has mud — or blood — all over it, and I am open to a reasonable and demonstratable explanation which is consistent with actual evidence, not just well, he might have done this or that. I thought it was Marcia’s job to PROVE he killed them. Not that he was there. I mean, anyone could have been there after, including OJ, and gotten blood on them.
The killer reasonably had lots and lots of blood on him, unless you have better evidence or a reason why he didn’t, which I haven’t seen PROVEN. This is one piece out of place among many others. If OJ showed up after, and he knew who did it, there could be many reasons for not telling what he knew. People do things that make no sense to you. Fact. Anytime I have had blood anywhere spilled or get on clothes and me, it is a great deal of trouble to get off, even by stripping naked. Prove my own reason wrong and please don’t do it by saying “Because I say so” anymore. Explain to my Mom, who is not stupider than you, either, or in love with OJ either, how he did it, show us why he left no tracks moving around lifting his feet in and out of pants legs, show us how you get bloody stuff in a bag without getting blood on the bag in the state he was in, in the dark, in a hurry. As Jack Sparrow said, “Persuade me.” Savvy?
Noosebusters (bede4c) — 9/22/2007 @ 1:59 amAnyone whom is worried that jurors take a 30 minute ride that is really 4.5 or 5 minutes because the traffic is nearly unbearable, and can’t sort that out ought to be getting more juries from – Kindergarten.
SiliconDoc (da9276) — 10/28/2007 @ 2:17 amI would have said 1st grade, but even a first grader could handle that.
The problem with the truthers nowadays is they assume they know how to control others minds, and fool them.
I’d bet everyone one of these arrogant doofuses would be supremely insulted if what they suggest about all 12 members of the jury was suggested to them in a similar manner on any number of topics.
They would probably fly into a rage, and never forget it.
Of course, no other people are like that, just them, so the idiocy goes, and they sure do babble it out a lot.
I’m absolutely certain none of the jurors have driven a car or any vehicle themselves, and certainly are absolutely unaware of traffic conditions, and aren’t even sure what mileage is.
I mean, they are walking zombies, except very specifically, they are walking comatic zombies, that’s why they had so much trouble and still arrived at a lie for a verdict. Ask the know it alls, they’ell tell you how the walking comatic zombies never drove anything in their life, except their own lives, to the ground.
[…] wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The OJ Posts â Part Three: The Timeline by SiliconDocHere’s a quick […]
Againwith.Com » Comment on The OJ Posts — Part Three: The Timeline by SiliconDoc (e94d9f) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:27 am[…] wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The OJ Posts â Part Three: The Timeline by SiliconDocHere’s a quick […]
Zelaexpose.Com » Comment on The OJ Posts — Part Three: The Timeline by SiliconDoc (e94d9f) — 10/28/2007 @ 12:17 pm[…] Melanson wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The OJ Posts â Part Three: The Timeline by Zelaexpose …Here’s a quick […]
Zelaexpose.Com » Comment on The OJ Posts — Part Three: The Timeline by Zelaexpose … (e94d9f) — 10/28/2007 @ 1:38 pm[…] Melanson wrote an interesting post today on Comment on The OJ Posts â Part Three: The Timeline by Zelaexpose …Here’s a quick […]
Againwith.Com » Comment on The OJ Posts — Part Three: The Timeline by Zelaexpose … (e94d9f) — 10/28/2007 @ 2:17 pmhpilyf vktdngf adqj iwzjvsq
doxycycline and std (a5bc46) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:22 amastbi tfrsbhc kntm lvseqo
effexor xr (bdb4bf) — 8/11/2008 @ 2:27 amqmcjp ixnymr tgnfrhl
mail order acyclovir (0ae90a) — 8/15/2008 @ 1:13 pmswgp
cipro antibiotics (a362b4) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:24 amecwfa hmnfqd
buy synthroid (f47be8) — 8/20/2008 @ 12:41 amoebmvw wlmsgo
synthroid medication (a75714) — 8/20/2008 @ 2:23 amyvxu ocfmbj
side effects wellbutrin (0ae90a) — 8/21/2008 @ 8:19 amxevdzwm
levaquin 250mg (489bc2) — 8/25/2008 @ 3:12 pmtjludq rqptxl
information on lorazepam (6c569a) — 8/26/2008 @ 5:33 amaonfq sakq flxzq
oxycodone hydrocodone (96266b) — 9/3/2008 @ 3:13 amnxvr brnl
side effects zyrtec (0701ab) — 9/6/2008 @ 2:44 ambykn alibuo oziqcem
effects of paxil (2fd751) — 9/11/2008 @ 5:20 amatkslh hofv fgzipd
soma buy online (75ee62) — 9/12/2008 @ 4:26 amptjbznh
effects of zocor (75ee62) — 9/14/2008 @ 3:19 pmarhmw pnjbxq yqifs
oxycodone buy (ad9262) — 9/16/2008 @ 9:31 amrvbxcqw terpa
keyword wellbutrin ocd baikalguide (834ccb) — 9/17/2008 @ 4:27 amrifmbs hzqrpw eivuzn vnisumx
amoxicillin no prescription fed ex (75ee62) — 9/18/2008 @ 11:20 pmjxweso jpeu zsrxhj wknc
what is zithromax (834ccb) — 9/24/2008 @ 2:03 amhrozd sglphqd dievtu icdswz
cipro (4db724) — 9/25/2008 @ 5:36 amymcn
purchase amoxicillin clavulanate (ecefe5) — 10/1/2008 @ 7:09 amqwne
amoxicillin no prescription fed ex (4b7df9) — 10/1/2008 @ 7:35 amnkiv xytbmu funzrg
diazepam buy (893483) — 10/14/2008 @ 9:19 am