If you take the 80 minutes to watch Bill Dear discuss his evidence I think you'll be as fascinated as I was:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795#
O.J Simpson goes to prison (Max 33 years) (Min 9 Years)
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
Category 5
- Category 5
- Posts: 10074
- Age: 35
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:00 pm
- Location: New Brunswick, NJ
- Contact:
Re: O.J Simpson goes to prison (Max 33 years) (Min 9 Years)
0 likes
"GAME SET MATCH GIANTS WILL WIN THE NFC EAST and have a FIRST ROUND BYE with a win next week!!!" - StormingB81, the Giants lost, and did not win the NFC east.
Re: O.J Simpson gets 15 years in prison
Category 5 wrote:I'm sickened. 15? Should've gotten life IMO.
But heck, I also think he should've been put to death 13 years ago so I might be a tad bias.
"Category 5": I'd be interested in your opinion on calling for putting what turns out to most likely be a totally innocent man to death? Any comment besides a smear video of what now turns out to be a terribly wrongfully-accused victim himself?
0 likes
Re: O.J Simpson gets 15 years in prison
Sanibel wrote:
Forgive me if I might seem impertinent Tron, but you might want to look up something in America called "laws" and "rights" and legal procedure. While I also believe in karma, and agree OJ committed accessory after the fact,
Sanibel wrote:Category 5 wrote:I'm sickened. 15? Should've gotten life IMO.
But heck, I also think he should've been put to death 13 years ago so I might be a tad bias.
"Category 5": I'd be interested in your opinion on calling for putting what turns out to most likely be a totally innocent man to death? Any comment besides a smear video of what now turns out to be a terribly wrongfully-accused victim himself?
So you think hes guilty of accessory after the fact, but then you go and call him totally innocent?? Kind of contradicting dont you think there sanibel.. And if it was true that even "all" he did was accessory after the fact (OF A MURDER) then in my book still string his **** UP
0 likes
2010 Archive: HURRICANE ALEX, TD TWO, TS BONNIE, TS COLIN, TD FIVE, HURRICANE DANIELLE, HURRICANE EARL, TS FIONA, TS GASTON, TS HERMINE, HURRICANE IGOR, HURRICANE JULIA, HURRICANE KARL, HURRICANE LISA, TS MATTHEW, TS NICOLE, HURRICANE OTTO, HURRICANE PAULA (Active)
Re: O.J Simpson gets 15 years in prison
canes101 wrote:
So you think hes guilty of accessory after the fact, but then you go and call him totally innocent?? Kind of contradicting dont you think there sanibel.. And if it was true that even "all" he did was accessory after the fact (OF A MURDER) then in my book still string his **** UP
Yes, he was totally innocent of the crime for which he was accused - murdering Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I feel I'm not the one who should be answering the questions here. I feel the pertinent "contradictions" are on the other side. You've jumped a very important thing here. In America, if a person is guilty of accessory after the fact he has to be charged and tried for it. You can't jail people in America on "karma". To make an argument for it is only to prove, by your own words, an extra-judical bias.
So, let me get this straight, you still preserve the right to (figuratively) lynch a man who isn't guilty of what most people thought he was (including myself - I thought he was guilty as heck), who obviously endured a lot because of it, who very much had painful moral/ethical decisions in protecting his own son, for accessory after the fact? May I remind you accessory after the fact (especially with the mitigating family member issues) is not a capital crime. In fact if you were pursuing the strict legal course you assume you could justifiably say the original jury made the correct decision.
This is interesting because I had people assure me they were rational and fair and genuinely thought OJ was being processed fairly in Nevada, yet they don't chime-in when people want to lynch him anyway even after it's been fairly obviously proven he was innocent all along. They also don't recognize the Los Angeles District Attorney's "accessory after the fact" in concealing the DNA evidence that must have been on Jason's cap. They just ignore it. So the answer I'm getting is, in a country that defines itself by equal rule of law for the state and citizen the citizen should be lynched at the first excuse, even though he was innocent and suffered wrongful accusations, but the state itself, which is equally as guilty, is given a pass and isn't even mentioned, even when thoroughly pointed-out in the discussion. And the state isn't even mentioned in its denial of any re-opening of the case, even with fairly firm evidence. Hmm.
Forgive me if I'm less than impressed with the claims of fair treatment and believing the Nevada judge. And may I say some people don't have a sense of how they are making my point for me better than I ever could.
It dawned on me that I remembered there was a mystery witness who claimed to see a hispanic/black man running from the walkway. I remember this from the case. Back then I thought to myself "Yeah, right, the classic black/hispanic man scapegoat again". However, if you look at Jason he could be taken for a black hispanic man. This is really amazing.
0 likes
-
bvigal
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 2276
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:49 am
- Location: British Virgin Islands
- Contact:
Re: O.J Simpson goes to prison (Max 33 years) (Min 9 Years)
After careful consideration of the new information, and with all due respect, Sanibel, I still believe he did it. There are always conspiracy theories, etc. that emerge with sensational crimes, and this one no exception with the 'mafia did it' theory a couple years ago. His blood was at the scene. Nicole's blood was on socks in OJ's bedroom. A civil jury ruled unanimously that OJ was responsible for the deaths, a trial in which none of the evidence was ruled inadmissable, as in the criminal trial.
Simpson had a history of battering his wife, and girlfriends, with police records and audio tapes to prove it. The day before the murders, Nicole dashed his hopes for a reconciliation.
A couple of years later, after all his notoriety and adverse publicity, supposedly trying to live a quiet life in Florida, outside the limelight in the best interest of his kids, he got out of his car and accosted another man in a case of road rage. He claimed in court that he walked away from the man's vehicle without doing anything, but couldn't explain what he (Simpson) was doing outside of his own vehicle - clearly he was angered beyond control and stopped his car to walk over and confront the other driver. When the jury ruled there was not enough evidence to convict (one person's word against the other), Simpson sued Miami/Dade County for his legal fees! Like, if you get found innocent, you should sue for being tried in the first place! A judge had clearly found during arraignment sufficient evidence to hold a trial.
This is a man who has proven time and again that he MUST HAVE HIS WAY, and that he will not stand being crossed, by anyone. The robbery crime for which he was convicted is a golden example. Even if I could believe that Jason commited the murders, it would not change my feelings about OJ Simpson. Of Jason's anger problem, I've no doubt, nor that it likely stems from Simpson's battery of his mother. That's how domestic violence passes down from generation to generation.
Before the murder trial, I met Nicole's sister, and had an opportunity to hear the family's side. They were all very much afraid for Nicole for a long time, because of previous batteries. They begged her many times to leave him, but she had the classic battered woman syndrome: "it might get better, it was really my fault, I don't want to hurt the kids, what will people think, what will it do to his career," etc. In light of Simpson's very public history of uncontrolled rage to his own and his children's detriment, and having worked with family violence for many years, I would bet my last precious dime he is guilty. Oh yes, one is innocent until proven guilty. But were it not for the botched evidence, and the legal precidents of giving criminals every advantage at trial, despite what is good common sense, he would easily have been convicted. (jmho)
Simpson had a history of battering his wife, and girlfriends, with police records and audio tapes to prove it. The day before the murders, Nicole dashed his hopes for a reconciliation.
A couple of years later, after all his notoriety and adverse publicity, supposedly trying to live a quiet life in Florida, outside the limelight in the best interest of his kids, he got out of his car and accosted another man in a case of road rage. He claimed in court that he walked away from the man's vehicle without doing anything, but couldn't explain what he (Simpson) was doing outside of his own vehicle - clearly he was angered beyond control and stopped his car to walk over and confront the other driver. When the jury ruled there was not enough evidence to convict (one person's word against the other), Simpson sued Miami/Dade County for his legal fees! Like, if you get found innocent, you should sue for being tried in the first place! A judge had clearly found during arraignment sufficient evidence to hold a trial.
This is a man who has proven time and again that he MUST HAVE HIS WAY, and that he will not stand being crossed, by anyone. The robbery crime for which he was convicted is a golden example. Even if I could believe that Jason commited the murders, it would not change my feelings about OJ Simpson. Of Jason's anger problem, I've no doubt, nor that it likely stems from Simpson's battery of his mother. That's how domestic violence passes down from generation to generation.
Before the murder trial, I met Nicole's sister, and had an opportunity to hear the family's side. They were all very much afraid for Nicole for a long time, because of previous batteries. They begged her many times to leave him, but she had the classic battered woman syndrome: "it might get better, it was really my fault, I don't want to hurt the kids, what will people think, what will it do to his career," etc. In light of Simpson's very public history of uncontrolled rage to his own and his children's detriment, and having worked with family violence for many years, I would bet my last precious dime he is guilty. Oh yes, one is innocent until proven guilty. But were it not for the botched evidence, and the legal precidents of giving criminals every advantage at trial, despite what is good common sense, he would easily have been convicted. (jmho)
0 likes
-
bvigal
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 2276
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:49 am
- Location: British Virgin Islands
- Contact:
Re: O.J Simpson goes to prison (Max 33 years) (Min 9 Years)
Futhermore, I forgot to mention, OJ's action in suing Miami/Dade is a very strong telltale sign of a abusive personality: everything is someone else's fault. It wasn't his fault for taking the actions he did at the scene, it was the county's fault for prosecuting him.
0 likes
Re: O.J Simpson goes to prison (Max 33 years) (Min 9 Years)
Sanibel wrote:Dear brought his evidence to the LA District Attorney and they told him the case was closed.
How can the case be 'closed' when the murders were never solved?
0 likes
Re: O.J Simpson goes to prison (Max 33 years) (Min 9 Years)
With all respect, I don't think you answered my points. The Los Angeles District Attorney had to have Jason's DNA in that watchcap. While I appreciate your attempt to rationalize why OJ should be prosecuted because you don't like him, I think you've failed to answer the main points - and that's the whole point of the matter. In America you can't practice "I don't like him" justice by means of the real legal type of justice which includes jail. Sorry to put it the way I do, but it must be said.
We are well beyond "conspiracy theory" here and Jason's DNA is well across the line of "hard evidence". In my book, while OJ may have personal failings, I am much more worried about governments that can commit the same violations they impose harsh judgments on others for like obstruction of justice and concealment of evidence. These are serious matters that the LA DA is simply allowed to rule in favor of itself over. In effect this will have much more impact on me personally than OJ being a bad guy.
Simpson had a history of battering his wife, and girlfriends, with police records and audio tapes to prove it. The day before the murders, Nicole dashed his hopes for a reconciliation.
So did Humphrey Bogart. John Wayne made a living out of beating the heck out of people on screen. Maybe they were from another era, but you get my point. This is why law and legal procedure is important. It makes sure people are only jailed for that which they've done rather than that which people think they might have done.
A couple of years later, after all his notoriety and adverse publicity, supposedly trying to live a quiet life in Florida, outside the limelight in the best interest of his kids, he got out of his car and accosted another man in a case of road rage.
I have no doubt Jason inherited those genes. The same genes probably made OJ angry enough to try to get his stolen property back in Las Vegas. Although not a direct analogy, if one judges people only by their aggressive actions one could correctly say the Los Angeles police have numerous convictions for aggressive behavior. One could paint the LAPD in the same light if aggressive behavior was the sole measure. That's why it's important to stick to law.
Before the murder trial, I met Nicole's sister, and had an opportunity to hear the family's side. They were all very much afraid for Nicole for a long time, because of previous batteries. They begged her many times to leave him, but she had the classic battered woman syndrome: "it might get better, it was really my fault, I don't want to hurt the kids, what will people think, what will it do to his career," etc. In light of Simpson's very public history of uncontrolled rage to his own and his children's detriment, and having worked with family violence for many years, I would bet my last precious dime he is guilty. Oh yes, one is innocent until proven guilty. But were it not for the botched evidence, and the legal precidents of giving criminals every advantage at trial, despite what is good common sense, he would easily have been convicted. (jmho)
I hate to put it this way, but I'm much more afraid of people who are willing to put what could very well be a totally innocent person in jail even though they might be innocent. That, to me, is a much more scary systemic type of "battery" or violence of sorts. It's one that laws and justice procedures are clearly designed to prevent. Especially in America.
There's a very important thing here. OJ was not being tried because he was a bad guy with a bad history, he was being tried because of the specific charge of murder. So while I appreciate those who stand up for the victims I don't think they've cleared the LEGAL hurdle of evidence here. And I think they've, once again, shown that OJ is being judged by an extra-legal bias outside of that which is considered legal evidence. The point stands that there's serious reason and evidence to consider the murders were done by someone else.
In OJ's defense he was a famous personality and sportscaster. He might have been a wife-beater but I don't think he was crazy enough to risk his millionaire lifestyle with a gutter murder. Jason, on the other hand, did have a psychological profile of going over that particular edge and did have a specific history of threatening with a knife, as well as suicidal tendencies.
I think there's very specific evidence of Jason's knife's handle butt leaving a forensic print in Nicole's scalp. That was Jason's knife, not OJ's. And I think this, and the watchcap DNA, puts us past the point of no return as far as evidence. This is hardly what could be called "conspiracy theory".
In the video medical examiner Lee says "We found some other hairs we couldn't identify at the scene". Gee, I wonder where they found them and whose they were?
Also, Dear says the blood found on OJ's socks has a blood preservative only used by the LAPD lab. (No problem because he's a "bad guy" right?)
We are well beyond "conspiracy theory" here and Jason's DNA is well across the line of "hard evidence". In my book, while OJ may have personal failings, I am much more worried about governments that can commit the same violations they impose harsh judgments on others for like obstruction of justice and concealment of evidence. These are serious matters that the LA DA is simply allowed to rule in favor of itself over. In effect this will have much more impact on me personally than OJ being a bad guy.
Simpson had a history of battering his wife, and girlfriends, with police records and audio tapes to prove it. The day before the murders, Nicole dashed his hopes for a reconciliation.
So did Humphrey Bogart. John Wayne made a living out of beating the heck out of people on screen. Maybe they were from another era, but you get my point. This is why law and legal procedure is important. It makes sure people are only jailed for that which they've done rather than that which people think they might have done.
A couple of years later, after all his notoriety and adverse publicity, supposedly trying to live a quiet life in Florida, outside the limelight in the best interest of his kids, he got out of his car and accosted another man in a case of road rage.
I have no doubt Jason inherited those genes. The same genes probably made OJ angry enough to try to get his stolen property back in Las Vegas. Although not a direct analogy, if one judges people only by their aggressive actions one could correctly say the Los Angeles police have numerous convictions for aggressive behavior. One could paint the LAPD in the same light if aggressive behavior was the sole measure. That's why it's important to stick to law.
Before the murder trial, I met Nicole's sister, and had an opportunity to hear the family's side. They were all very much afraid for Nicole for a long time, because of previous batteries. They begged her many times to leave him, but she had the classic battered woman syndrome: "it might get better, it was really my fault, I don't want to hurt the kids, what will people think, what will it do to his career," etc. In light of Simpson's very public history of uncontrolled rage to his own and his children's detriment, and having worked with family violence for many years, I would bet my last precious dime he is guilty. Oh yes, one is innocent until proven guilty. But were it not for the botched evidence, and the legal precidents of giving criminals every advantage at trial, despite what is good common sense, he would easily have been convicted. (jmho)
I hate to put it this way, but I'm much more afraid of people who are willing to put what could very well be a totally innocent person in jail even though they might be innocent. That, to me, is a much more scary systemic type of "battery" or violence of sorts. It's one that laws and justice procedures are clearly designed to prevent. Especially in America.
There's a very important thing here. OJ was not being tried because he was a bad guy with a bad history, he was being tried because of the specific charge of murder. So while I appreciate those who stand up for the victims I don't think they've cleared the LEGAL hurdle of evidence here. And I think they've, once again, shown that OJ is being judged by an extra-legal bias outside of that which is considered legal evidence. The point stands that there's serious reason and evidence to consider the murders were done by someone else.
In OJ's defense he was a famous personality and sportscaster. He might have been a wife-beater but I don't think he was crazy enough to risk his millionaire lifestyle with a gutter murder. Jason, on the other hand, did have a psychological profile of going over that particular edge and did have a specific history of threatening with a knife, as well as suicidal tendencies.
I think there's very specific evidence of Jason's knife's handle butt leaving a forensic print in Nicole's scalp. That was Jason's knife, not OJ's. And I think this, and the watchcap DNA, puts us past the point of no return as far as evidence. This is hardly what could be called "conspiracy theory".
In the video medical examiner Lee says "We found some other hairs we couldn't identify at the scene". Gee, I wonder where they found them and whose they were?
Also, Dear says the blood found on OJ's socks has a blood preservative only used by the LAPD lab. (No problem because he's a "bad guy" right?)
0 likes
-
DanKellFla
- Category 5
- Posts: 1291
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:02 pm
- Location: Lake Worth, Florida
-
bvigal
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 2276
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:49 am
- Location: British Virgin Islands
- Contact:
Re: O.J Simpson goes to prison (Max 33 years) (Min 9 Years)
Sanibel wrote:We are well beyond "conspiracy theory" here ...
Sanibel, this isn't a case of "I don't like him, so he's guilty". When I mentioned conspiracy, I was referring to the common knowledge that only the most elaborate, perfectly-executed conspiracy on the part of multiple members of the LAPD, coroner lab, and District Attorney, and their willingness to ALL perjure themselves on the witness stand, will explain away the mountain of DNA evidence implicating OJ Simpson (billions to 1). The smoke-screen of accusations and months of sleep-inducing DNA science testimony thrown at the jurors by defense team may have worked in the criminal trial to sufficiently confuse the jury, but it doesn't discount the evidence. i.e., I read detailed law about the legal requirement/process for chain of evidence in transfer of samples, done at the scene by Feltgen to assistant as required, and in front of tv news cameras they KNEW were rolling, and it was mis-represented to the jury as ineptitude/mishandling by the defense with no explainable purpose. That they were following procedures should have been explained in rebuttal by the prosecution, I don't know why they didn't, they were inept, in my opinion, thinking they had a slam dunk case.
Sanibel wrote:Also, Dear says the blood found on OJ's socks has a blood preservative only used by the LAPD lab. (No problem because he's a "bad guy" right?)
Since when is Mr. Dear the one and only, indisputable expert on the topic? Isn't he making money from this? Yes. Many experts disagree with him. So police planted the blood on the socks(Brown's blood)? And also on the glove outside(Brown/Goldman blood), and in his vehicle (Brown,Goldman,Simpson blood co-mingled), and trail, prints, etc.. Read other expert's opinions on just the body of evidence, such as Vincent Bugliosi, famed prosecutor who convicted the Manson Family. They tend to agree there is too much forensic evidence, that even if some were eliminated due to mishandling or contamination, it is still indisputable. Only consipracy mentioned earlier could explain it all away.
I don't know why the DA doesn't want to reopen the case and charge the son. There is no statute of limitations on murder, so if the evidence IS conclusive, he would be risking his career and criminal negligence to refuse to prosecute Jason. With all the public scrutiny, I wonder why he would risk so much? Again, only an elaborate conspiracy explains, where he could be sure that the whole chain of command would not turn on him, including the politicians such as the mayor and the voters. But, even if he's the stupidest man on earth, destined to bring about his own downfall, his decision doesn't prove OJ's innocence, nor does it prove a conspiracy.
If Jason did it and OJ was innocent, then why the car chase (thrown way bag/clothes)? Ask a cop what it means, in what statistical percentage of cases, when a suspect flees - especially a suspect who's had plenty of time to receive top-notch legal advice. OJ played a navy seal on tv pilot and was trained in hand combat methods, so Jason didn't have the only knowledge.
Forensic evidence is not the only type of evidence considered at trials. People are convicted every day on circumstantial evidence, without benefit of or in addition to, forensics. Essential in every prosecution is establishing motive, intent, etc. and done in courtrooms every day, based upon past behaviors and testimony of others. It is not "extra-legal bias outside of that which is considered legal evidence". What Nicole's sister told me, she and her family testified to in court. Had the other incidents already occurred, they may well have been entered as testimony to help depict OJ as a man who can not control his temper. It happens every day in courtrooms. You are being unfair in painting me as having a sort of vigilante mentality. I do not.
0 likes
-
Rainband
Re: O.J Simpson goes to prison (Max 33 years) (Min 9 Years)
I agree with sanibel. He couldn't have done it he is too weak and too stupid.
0 likes
-
Rainband
Re: O.J Simpson goes to prison (Max 33 years) (Min 9 Years)
What Nicole's sister told me, she and her family testified to in court. Had the other incidents already occurred, they may well have been entered as testimony to help depict OJ as a man who can not control his temper. I can't control my temper sometimes but that doesn't make me a murderer 
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests