'O.J. Is Innocent And I Can Prove It'

[cornflake]

Ok, I did go back and read the article because no, I hadn't.

The big motive offered as to why he'd have killed Nicole is because he'd cooked a neal and they hadn't gone over to eat it.

Also...

"I flew out two weeks after the murders," he said. "I climbed over the back gate and walked the walkway to the front door, and that's when I realized O.J. could not have done it. But he was there. He was either there at the time or there afterwards [and] became part of the crime."

Oh, okie then. That's some unassailable logic right there.

As for the 'similar' shoes, they were those shoes, iirc. Simpson's shoes. They were Simpson's gloves.

 

[cabanafrau]

Ahh, but that blood would also implicate his son, right? DNA would be pretty close. I am sure this is covered in the book if so many police officers have now been convinced that Jason did it.

DNA would be pretty close? Actually the DNA would have many similarities, however it would also have many differences in the markers that reflect his mother's DNA. If they attempted a match of OJ's DNA to blood at the scene and came pretty close but saw those differences, you can bet they would have been shaking the family tree to find the person who matched that DNA "like a glove".

You seem very familiar with this book and its author. Are you by any chance looking to drum up some interest and sales here?

 

[sbell111]

As shameful as the case was for the prosecution and police department, you would think they would WANT to find the guilty person IF it was someone else.

On the other hand, they look less ****ish if they stick with 'OJ did it and the jury was wrong' rather than 'oops. We've had it wrong all these years. We really are the idiots that everyone thought we were.'

<edited to express my amusement that the software edited that word.>

 

[RitaE]

Ok, I did go back and read the article because no, I hadn't.

The big motive offered as to why he'd have killed Nicole is because he'd cooked a neal and they hadn't gone over to eat it.

Also...



Oh, okie then. That's some unassailable logic right there.

As for the 'similar' shoes, they were those shoes, iirc. Simpson's shoes. They were Simpson's gloves.

I think the theory is more that the son was mentally ill, prone to violence, and off his medication. The details are really fuzzy in my mind but I remember there being problems with the chain of custody and processing procedures used on the blood samples. Even today, when DNA testing is accepted as iron clad proof, those types of errors are not looked upon favorably by a jury. Back then when it was some "new fangled science" it was huge.

Reading the article does make me curious as to why OJ Simpson would immediately hire a defense attorney for his son and why his son was apparently never questioned or investigated if that is true. It is really hard to have an opinion beyond that because that article reads like a persuasive essay where only the facts that support the given opinion are presented.

 

[cornflake]

I think the theory is more that the son was mentally ill, prone to violence, and off his medication. The details are really fuzzy in my mind but I remember there being problems with the chain of custody and processing procedures used on the blood samples. Even today, when DNA testing is accepted as iron clad proof, those types of errors are not looked upon favorably by a jury. Back then when it was some "new fangled science" it was huge.

Reading the article does make me curious as to why OJ Simpson would immediately hire a defense attorney for his son and why his son was apparently never questioned or investigated if that is true. It is really hard to have an opinion beyond that because that article reads like a persuasive essay where only the facts that support the given opinion are presented.

DNA wasn't new fangled science at the time; the Simpson jury had an average IQ of like 42.

Though, I was talking about the shoes and the gloves themselves, the physical items, not the blood.

 

[Imzadi]

It is really hard to have an opinion beyond that because that article reads like a persuasive essay where only the facts that support the given opinion are presented.

I think the pictures, police 911 tapes and medical evidence of Nicole Brown Simpson having been beaten and naming O.J. as the perpetrator and saying to different people that she was afraid O.J., not the son, may kill her some day is more than opinion.

IF that man in the article really believed he has the knife which killed Nicole, why not give it over to see if there is any forensic evidence which could truly support his claims?