Not about the show, but can someone explain how the civil case in 1996 wasn't considered double jeopardy?


I didn't know OJ had an older son at the time, you always saw the two little ones from him and Nicole.

I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe so. I think it only applies to criminal cases.

Did that really happen, episode 10 edition.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/04/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-10-recap


This show has me caring more about the trial NOW than I did THEN. Amazing.

The problem with the Jason commits crime then calls OJ theory is there is no record of the phone call.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I moved into a new house last month and got DirecTV, so I have their system. When I was fast forwarding through commercials, the bar at the bottom showed the episode as being 1 hour, 33 minutes long, but when it got to the 1:04 mark it just stopped and asked if I wanted to delete it. I tried in two different rooms with the same result.

---

If it makes you feel better, the actual episode length was only like 1 hour 9 minutes so you only missed the last five minutes.

---

Well now I"m even more confused. WTF DirecTV?

I think the cutoff point my DVR did was when they were watching Clinton on TV

quote:

---

I want to know if a juror actually gave OJ the black power salute after the verdict was read.

---

Yes, that juror's name is Lon Cryer and he was a member of the Black Panther Party in the 60s. Google him up.

quote:

---

There is still a lot about this case that does not make any sense. Everyone disses the jury, and If I was on the jury I think I would have been like the foreman.

---

IF the show was accurate in portraying the jury, then shame on the jury. Taking 4 hours to deliberate? Are you kidding me? And IF this was accurate, some of the jurors were being unreasonable asshats about it and refused to even look at the evidence.

quote:

---

Do I think that OJ did it? Probably an 80-90% chance that he did. Do I think that the prosecution proved their case? Not at all.

---

Like I said I can understand the not guilty verdict but I think it's a stretch to say the prosecution didn't prove anything

quote:

---

The only thing that they proved was that OJ was most likely at the crime scene.

---

Disagree entirely. The evidence clearly showed foul play.

quote:

---

Prosecution case hinged on these things:
1. DNA evidence. The defense made this evidence inadmissible by destroying Dennis Fung. Fung actually shakes hands with the OJ and the defense team after getting off the stand. No one really knew what DNA was back in 1995. This is before CSI and DNA evidence became mainstream.

2. The Detective that found the glove lied under oath, was a blatant racist, and pleaded the 5th amendment when asked if he planted evidence in this case.

---

Calling Fuhrman was a huge mistake, no doubt about that. And Cochran is a POS (a very smart POS) for capitalizing on that. Being 2 years removed from the Rodney King incident, this was a slam dunk for them.

quote:

---

So everything to do with DNA and Mark Fuhrman is tainted. Did the prosecution ever show the jury a murder weapon with OJ's prints on it?
Did the prosecution ever produce a witness that saw OJ with Ron Goldman and Nicole right before the murders?

---

Well, this is why we have trials. No one ever knows for sure what happened unless they witnessed it.

quote:

---

One of the jury members talked about how the prosecutions story did not make any sense to her. The story that Marcia Clark told over and over again was that OJ was a serial wife beater who battered his wife and this led to murder in June of 1994.

---

Easy for me to say I know, but this sounds like a bull**** excuse by the juror for the acquittal. I think the story makes a lot of sense.

quote:

---

The evidence presented during the trial showed that the last time that OJ was physical with Nicole was January 1, 1989. That is a 5.5 year gap between that incident and the murder.

---

Doesn't matter. There was still so much evidence of OJ being violent, angry, and jealous.

quote:

---

Ron Goldman was a 6-1 200 pound man. If OJ killed two people with a knife then he should have been covered in blood. There should be blood all over his car. On the seats, on the brakes and all over this clothes. The only thing that was found where small blood spots.

---

There will always be more questions. But I don't buy this reasoning. The evidence is strong that OJ was there. We can say "coulda shoulda woulda" all we want. It also seems like he tried to cover his tracks.

quote:

---

What happened to the bloody clothes?

---

Sounds like he got rid of them. Also rumors of Kardashian taking them.

quote:

---

The LAPD checked out the draining pipes at OJ's house and did not find any blood.
If OJ took a shower to clean up, then there should a lot of blood in his draining pipes. Everything that was found where small, minuscule blood spots.

---

I don't know the explanation for this.

quote:

---

These two points where all made during the trial by the defense witness Dr Henry Lee. The television show did not show this happening at all I have a feeling that the television show did not show Dr Henry Lee's testimony because they didn't want to show anything that might make viewers feel that OJ didn't do it.

---

TV shows always leave out some parts for one reason or another.

quote:

---

I also think that they wanted to limit the amount of times that the defense team was doing "Real Lawyering" because the race baiting makes for much better television.

---

I think it was pretty clear that the lawyers were good. And there was a significant amount of race baiting. Fuhrman, LAPD, refurbishing OJ's damn house and taking out all the pictures of white people!!!!

This whole trial was one massive race bait, and it's how the defense won.

quote:

---

Why has William Dear convinced me that his son did it?
-OJ Simpson was zeroed in as the suspect within the first hour of the cops finding the murder victims. No other suspect was ever seriously considered by the LAPD.

Jason Simpson was never interviewed by the LAPD.

- The day after the murder OJ hired a big time Los Angeles defense attorney for his son.
-His son was a chef that worked with knives for a living
-Jason Simpson was a walk on football player for USC. Large enough to kill two people with a knife.
- His son was on probation for attacking a previous boss with a knife
- Jason Simpson had gotten into a fight with a previous girlfriend and cut off her hair with a knife
- Jason Simpson had once almost choked an ex girlfriend to death
- He had a long history of depression and rage disorder.
-Nicole Simpson had accused Jason Simpson of stalking her.

Has OJ ever attacked someone with a knife?
His son has attacked multiple people with a knife and worked 10 minutes from the crime scene.

---

Maybe the son is guilty. Even if all this is true, I think the evidence of OJ's guilt is much stronger.

quote:

---

Why would OJ do this and ruin his rich and famous life?
Do you all really think that OJ Simpson couldn't get another woman?

---

Oh please. OJ was known to be incredibly jealous. He probably acted in a fit of rage and wasnt thinking clearly.

quote:

---

From the books I've read about this case....it was well known that Nicole Simpson got around and had a lot of mail suitors. Apparently....this is what OJ and Nicole used to fight about all the time.

---

See above comment.

quote:

---

Why would OJ kill his ex wife with his two kids sleeping upstairs?

---

See above comment.

quote:

---

Dear's theory is that Jason Simpson committed the crimes and then called OJ and told him that something happened to Nicole. OJ rushes over to Nicole's house (to also make sure his kids were okay) and stumbles onto this horrific crime scene.
He removes the bloody glove(to protect his son) and some of Ron and Nicoles blood gets on his shoes and socks.
This is how the blood trail gets from the crime scene back to his house.

---

Maybe the son did it, interesting theory. But I'm not convinced.

quote:

---

The easy way out is to just believe what TV tells you and that OJ must have did it.....but there is still a lot of things about this case that don't add up.

---

This is somewhat condescending. I've actually read up on the case extensively, before the series was around. Even still, lots of people involved in the trial have said the show is accurate. Some exaggerations and conversations that may not have happened, but it was accurate. And the show's creators I'm sure did all they could to paint an accurate picture.

The facts aren't on OJ's side. He had a great defense team and the race card was the ultimate trump card here.

I loved this show. I enjoyed all characters and thought they did a great job finding quality actors that look like the actual people.

I don't remember too much when it was going on b/c I was still in HS. I was pretty black & white back then regarding religion and politics so the deflecting race card was a huge turn off for me back then. Now I'm a bit different. While I still get annoyed with race card situations, I still do acknowledge that there can be something there at times.

IMO a guy like Fuhrman should never be in a law enforcement. He's part of the problem in society today and based off the show was a huge blow to the prosecution's case.

The show was a small sample of the entire case but I shared some of the questions the jurors mentioned at the end. There are just too many unanswered questions. On the flip side, I thought there was something to OJ not showing any emotion towards Nicole's death.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is still a lot about this case that does not make any sense. Everyone disses the jury, and If I was on the jury I think I would have been like the foreman.

---

IF the show was accurate in portraying the jury, then shame on the jury. Taking 4 hours to deliberate? Are you kidding me? And IF this was accurate, some of the jurors were being unreasonable asshats about it and refused to even look at the evidence.

quote:

---

Do I think that OJ did it? Probably an 80-90% chance that he did. Do I think that the prosecution proved their case? Not at all.

---

Like I said I can understand the not guilty verdict but I think it's a stretch to say the prosecution didn't prove anything

quote:

---

The only thing that they proved was that OJ was most likely at the crime scene.

---

Disagree entirely. The evidence clearly showed foul play.

quote:

---

Prosecution case hinged on these things:
1. DNA evidence. The defense made this evidence inadmissible by destroying Dennis Fung. Fung actually shakes hands with the OJ and the defense team after getting off the stand. No one really knew what DNA was back in 1995. This is before CSI and DNA evidence became mainstream.

2. The Detective that found the glove lied under oath, was a blatant racist, and pleaded the 5th amendment when asked if he planted evidence in this case.

---

Calling Fuhrman was a huge mistake, no doubt about that. And Cochran is a POS (a very smart POS) for capitalizing on that. Being 2 years removed from the Rodney King incident, this was a slam dunk for them.

quote:

---

So everything to do with DNA and Mark Fuhrman is tainted. Did the prosecution ever show the jury a murder weapon with OJ's prints on it?
Did the prosecution ever produce a witness that saw OJ with Ron Goldman and Nicole right before the murders?

---

Well, this is why we have trials. No one ever knows for sure what happened unless they witnessed it.

quote:

---

One of the jury members talked about how the prosecutions story did not make any sense to her. The story that Marcia Clark told over and over again was that OJ was a serial wife beater who battered his wife and this led to murder in June of 1994.

---

Easy for me to say I know, but this sounds like a bull**** excuse by the juror for the acquittal. I think the story makes a lot of sense.

quote:

---

The evidence presented during the trial showed that the last time that OJ was physical with Nicole was January 1, 1989. That is a 5.5 year gap between that incident and the murder.

---

Doesn't matter. There was still so much evidence of OJ being violent, angry, and jealous.

quote:

---

Ron Goldman was a 6-1 200 pound man. If OJ killed two people with a knife then he should have been covered in blood. There should be blood all over his car. On the seats, on the brakes and all over this clothes. The only thing that was found where small blood spots.

---

There will always be more questions. But I don't buy this reasoning. The evidence is strong that OJ was there. We can say "coulda shoulda woulda" all we want. It also seems like he tried to cover his tracks.

quote:

---

What happened to the bloody clothes?

---

Sounds like he got rid of them. Also rumors of Kardashian taking them.

quote:

---

The LAPD checked out the draining pipes at OJ's house and did not find any blood.
If OJ took a shower to clean up, then there should a lot of blood in his draining pipes. Everything that was found where small, minuscule blood spots.

---

I don't know the explanation for this.

quote:

---

These two points where all made during the trial by the defense witness Dr Henry Lee. The television show did not show this happening at all I have a feeling that the television show did not show Dr Henry Lee's testimony because they didn't want to show anything that might make viewers feel that OJ didn't do it.

---

TV shows always leave out some parts for one reason or another.

quote:

---

I also think that they wanted to limit the amount of times that the defense team was doing "Real Lawyering" because the race baiting makes for much better television.

---

I think it was pretty clear that the lawyers were good. And there was a significant amount of race baiting. Fuhrman, LAPD, refurbishing OJ's damn house and taking out all the pictures of white people!!!!

This whole trial was one massive race bait, and it's how the defense won.

quote:

---

Why has William Dear convinced me that his son did it?
-OJ Simpson was zeroed in as the suspect within the first hour of the cops finding the murder victims. No other suspect was ever seriously considered by the LAPD.

Jason Simpson was never interviewed by the LAPD.

- The day after the murder OJ hired a big time Los Angeles defense attorney for his son.
-His son was a chef that worked with knives for a living
-Jason Simpson was a walk on football player for USC. Large enough to kill two people with a knife.
- His son was on probation for attacking a previous boss with a knife
- Jason Simpson had gotten into a fight with a previous girlfriend and cut off her hair with a knife
- Jason Simpson had once almost choked an ex girlfriend to death
- He had a long history of depression and rage disorder.
-Nicole Simpson had accused Jason Simpson of stalking her.

Has OJ ever attacked someone with a knife?
His son has attacked multiple people with a knife and worked 10 minutes from the crime scene.

---

Maybe the son is guilty. Even if all this is true, I think the evidence of OJ's guilt is much stronger.

quote:

---

Why would OJ do this and ruin his rich and famous life?
Do you all really think that OJ Simpson couldn't get another woman?

---

Oh please. OJ was known to be incredibly jealous. He probably acted in a fit of rage and wasnt thinking clearly.

quote:

---

From the books I've read about this case....it was well known that Nicole Simpson got around and had a lot of mail suitors. Apparently....this is what OJ and Nicole used to fight about all the time.

---

See above comment.

quote:

---

Why would OJ kill his ex wife with his two kids sleeping upstairs?

---

See above comment.

quote:

---

Dear's theory is that Jason Simpson committed the crimes and then called OJ and told him that something happened to Nicole. OJ rushes over to Nicole's house (to also make sure his kids were okay) and stumbles onto this horrific crime scene.
He removes the bloody glove(to protect his son) and some of Ron and Nicoles blood gets on his shoes and socks.
This is how the blood trail gets from the crime scene back to his house.

---

Maybe the son did it, interesting theory. But I'm not convinced.

quote:

---

The easy way out is to just believe what TV tells you and that OJ must have did it.....but there is still a lot of things about this case that don't add up.

---

This is somewhat condescending. I've actually read up on the case extensively, before the series was around. Even still, lots of people involved in the trial have said the show is accurate. Some exaggerations and conversations that may not have happened, but it was accurate. And the show's creators I'm sure did all they could to paint an accurate picture.

The facts aren't on OJ's side. He had a great defense team and the race card was the ultimate trump card here.

---

If OJ killed two people with a knife why wasn't more blood found in his car and in the draining pipes at his house?

If he took a shower to clean up, the blood would have been found by the LAPD in the draining pipes of his house.

This is the #1 thing that does not make sense to me. If you kill two people with a knife (one being a large man) you should be covered in blood. There should be blood found all over his car. All over his brakes and seats.

The blood spots found in his car and on his property where all minuscule.

My thought is that OJ was at the crime scene and stepped in the blood. Thus tracking it back to his house.


There is a guy that was never interviewed by the LAPD.
He had stalked Nicole Simpson
He worked with knives for a living because he was a Chef.
He was on probation for attacking his previous boss with a knife
He had had attacked a previous girlfriend with a knife and cut off her hair.
He worked 10 minutes from the Crime Scene
OJ Simpson hired a prominent defense attorney for his son the day after the murders.

There *was* blood in the sink and shower.

Read my post above on the blood.

OJ also got HIMSELF an attorney on the flight back to LA.

OJ told the cops he was in the shower...and out chipping golf balls...and none of that was true. Park SAW HIM return to the house. The guy had no alibi and all the evidence pointed to him. No way that guy goes on trial and loses his reputation and image to take the fall for someone else. The defense NEVER submitted an alternate theory of the crime or potential suspects. Give me a break.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is still a lot about this case that does not make any sense. Everyone disses the jury, and If I was on the jury I think I would have been like the foreman.

---

IF the show was accurate in portraying the jury, then shame on the jury. Taking 4 hours to deliberate? Are you kidding me? And IF this was accurate, some of the jurors were being unreasonable asshats about it and refused to even look at the evidence.

quote:

---

Do I think that OJ did it? Probably an 80-90% chance that he did. Do I think that the prosecution proved their case? Not at all.

---

Like I said I can understand the not guilty verdict but I think it's a stretch to say the prosecution didn't prove anything

quote:

---

The only thing that they proved was that OJ was most likely at the crime scene.

---

Disagree entirely. The evidence clearly showed foul play.

quote:

---

Prosecution case hinged on these things:
1. DNA evidence. The defense made this evidence inadmissible by destroying Dennis Fung. Fung actually shakes hands with the OJ and the defense team after getting off the stand. No one really knew what DNA was back in 1995. This is before CSI and DNA evidence became mainstream.

2. The Detective that found the glove lied under oath, was a blatant racist, and pleaded the 5th amendment when asked if he planted evidence in this case.

---

Calling Fuhrman was a huge mistake, no doubt about that. And Cochran is a POS (a very smart POS) for capitalizing on that. Being 2 years removed from the Rodney King incident, this was a slam dunk for them.

quote:

---

So everything to do with DNA and Mark Fuhrman is tainted. Did the prosecution ever show the jury a murder weapon with OJ's prints on it?
Did the prosecution ever produce a witness that saw OJ with Ron Goldman and Nicole right before the murders?

---

Well, this is why we have trials. No one ever knows for sure what happened unless they witnessed it.

quote:

---

One of the jury members talked about how the prosecutions story did not make any sense to her. The story that Marcia Clark told over and over again was that OJ was a serial wife beater who battered his wife and this led to murder in June of 1994.

---

Easy for me to say I know, but this sounds like a bull**** excuse by the juror for the acquittal. I think the story makes a lot of sense.

quote:

---

The evidence presented during the trial showed that the last time that OJ was physical with Nicole was January 1, 1989. That is a 5.5 year gap between that incident and the murder.

---

Doesn't matter. There was still so much evidence of OJ being violent, angry, and jealous.

quote:

---

Ron Goldman was a 6-1 200 pound man. If OJ killed two people with a knife then he should have been covered in blood. There should be blood all over his car. On the seats, on the brakes and all over this clothes. The only thing that was found where small blood spots.

---

There will always be more questions. But I don't buy this reasoning. The evidence is strong that OJ was there. We can say "coulda shoulda woulda" all we want. It also seems like he tried to cover his tracks.

quote:

---

What happened to the bloody clothes?

---

Sounds like he got rid of them. Also rumors of Kardashian taking them.

quote:

---

The LAPD checked out the draining pipes at OJ's house and did not find any blood.
If OJ took a shower to clean up, then there should a lot of blood in his draining pipes. Everything that was found where small, minuscule blood spots.

---

I don't know the explanation for this.

quote:

---

These two points where all made during the trial by the defense witness Dr Henry Lee. The television show did not show this happening at all I have a feeling that the television show did not show Dr Henry Lee's testimony because they didn't want to show anything that might make viewers feel that OJ didn't do it.

---

TV shows always leave out some parts for one reason or another.

quote:

---

I also think that they wanted to limit the amount of times that the defense team was doing "Real Lawyering" because the race baiting makes for much better television.

---

I think it was pretty clear that the lawyers were good. And there was a significant amount of race baiting. Fuhrman, LAPD, refurbishing OJ's damn house and taking out all the pictures of white people!!!!

This whole trial was one massive race bait, and it's how the defense won.

quote:

---

Why has William Dear convinced me that his son did it?
-OJ Simpson was zeroed in as the suspect within the first hour of the cops finding the murder victims. No other suspect was ever seriously considered by the LAPD.

Jason Simpson was never interviewed by the LAPD.

- The day after the murder OJ hired a big time Los Angeles defense attorney for his son.
-His son was a chef that worked with knives for a living
-Jason Simpson was a walk on football player for USC. Large enough to kill two people with a knife.
- His son was on probation for attacking a previous boss with a knife
- Jason Simpson had gotten into a fight with a previous girlfriend and cut off her hair with a knife
- Jason Simpson had once almost choked an ex girlfriend to death
- He had a long history of depression and rage disorder.
-Nicole Simpson had accused Jason Simpson of stalking her.

Has OJ ever attacked someone with a knife?
His son has attacked multiple people with a knife and worked 10 minutes from the crime scene.

---

Maybe the son is guilty. Even if all this is true, I think the evidence of OJ's guilt is much stronger.

quote:

---

Why would OJ do this and ruin his rich and famous life?
Do you all really think that OJ Simpson couldn't get another woman?

---

Oh please. OJ was known to be incredibly jealous. He probably acted in a fit of rage and wasnt thinking clearly.

quote:

---

From the books I've read about this case....it was well known that Nicole Simpson got around and had a lot of mail suitors. Apparently....this is what OJ and Nicole used to fight about all the time.

---

See above comment.

quote:

---

Why would OJ kill his ex wife with his two kids sleeping upstairs?

---

See above comment.

quote:

---

Dear's theory is that Jason Simpson committed the crimes and then called OJ and told him that something happened to Nicole. OJ rushes over to Nicole's house (to also make sure his kids were okay) and stumbles onto this horrific crime scene.
He removes the bloody glove(to protect his son) and some of Ron and Nicoles blood gets on his shoes and socks.
This is how the blood trail gets from the crime scene back to his house.

---

Maybe the son did it, interesting theory. But I'm not convinced.

quote:

---

The easy way out is to just believe what TV tells you and that OJ must have did it.....but there is still a lot of things about this case that don't add up.

---

This is somewhat condescending. I've actually read up on the case extensively, before the series was around. Even still, lots of people involved in the trial have said the show is accurate. Some exaggerations and conversations that may not have happened, but it was accurate. And the show's creators I'm sure did all they could to paint an accurate picture.

The facts aren't on OJ's side. He had a great defense team and the race card was the ultimate trump card here.

---

If OJ killed two people with a knife why wasn't more blood found in his car and in the draining pipes at his house?

If he took a shower to clean up, the blood would have been found by the LAPD in the draining pipes of his house.

This is the #1 thing that does not make sense to me. If you kill two people with a knife (one being a large man) you should be covered in blood. There should be blood found all over his car. All over his brakes and seats.

The blood spots found in his car and on his property where all minuscule.

My thought is that OJ was at the crime scene and stepped in the blood. Thus tracking it back to his house.


There is a guy that was never interviewed by the LAPD.
He had stalked Nicole Simpson
He worked with knives for a living because he was a Chef.
He was on probation for attacking his previous boss with a knife
He had had attacked a previous girlfriend with a knife and cut off her hair.
He worked 10 minutes from the Crime Scene
OJ Simpson hired a prominent defense attorney for his son the day after the murders.

---

While I admit some things may not be perfectly aligned.....or explained....the lack of blood is actually fairly well explained.

A guy at The Village Voice did a pretty good job tearing down Bill Dear's theories on Jason Simpson....


for example....Detective Tom Lange of the LAPD who was one of the investigating officers was asked this specifically - relating to Dears theory which fails to explain Simpsons blood adequately and has a nearly impossible timeline (so improbable that Dear did not provide a timeline).....

Lange said:

quote:

---

Lange responds that forensic evidence showed that except for two cuts on Goldman, the lethal slashes to the two victims were dealt by an attacker who was behind them. The blood from those wounds sprayed on the ground, not on the perpetrator. And anyway, Lange says, it's a misconception that little blood was found in the Bronco. "There was a lot of blood in the Bronco. It wasn't pools of blood. But there was tremendous amounts there. And only three people's blood was found the two victims' and O.J. Simpson's," he says.

---

Lange also refutes that Jason was never considered:

quote:

---

Lange says detectives wanted very much to speak with Jason, as well as several other people close to O.J., such as Paula Barbieri and Cathy Randa, his assistant. But all of them "lawyered up" soon after the murders, Lange says, and made it clear they would not be interviewed. The LAPD did consider Jason a suspect, Lange says, and he was one of about 50 people checked out by the department. But the lack of evidence placing Jason at the scene, the lack of a motive, and Jason's alibi that he'd been working at the time of the murders all made it plain that he was a dead end, Lange says. "I understand that since that time he has softened about the time he left the restaurant," Lange adds. "But that doesn't change the fact that the evidence at the scene all pointed to one man: O.J. Simpson."

---

The Village Voice guy had a psychologist examine Jasons medical records that Dear based a lot of his motive on.....including the diagnosis of rage disorder and stalking Nicole....

quote:

---

The professor said Jason's psychiatrist at Cedars-Sinai did a thorough job and arrived at the correct diagnosis. Jason was an alcoholic with a borderline personality, a disorder characterized by symptoms that can include impulsiveness, an inability to create stable relationships, recurrent suicidal behavior, and difficulty controlling anger.

"The psychiatrist was right on," the professor says, but he disagrees with how Dear interprets the diagnosis in his book. "Borderline people usually make dramatic gestures, which Jason did with those suicide attempts. But they very rarely act out by committing double murders. Anybody can murder somebody. I suppose a borderline personality, since he's more impulsive, might be slightly more likely to commit a murder compared to a healthy person. But that increased chance is nothing in comparison to people with antisocial personality disorders."

The professor, who specializes in criminal psychology, says prisons are filled with men and women exhibiting antisocial, not borderline, personalities. And, he points out, Jason's medical records do not indicate that he was diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder which Dear calls "rage disorder" and points to as the number-one reason to believe Jason had the mind-set to commit such a heinous crime.

"The rage disorder is Dear's diagnosis, not the doctor's diagnosis," the professor says.
He adds that if a borderline person were to commit such a crime, one would expect the attacker to have an intense relationship with his victim, and there's little evidence that Jason had such a close, ongoing link with Nicole Brown. (Dear's only evidence of it, comments ascribed to former Simpson family friend Ron Shipp about Jason's stalking Brown, were mischaracterized, Shipp tells New Times. More on that later.)

The professor isn't impressed that Dear consulted other psychological "profilers" who told the private eye that Jason is a better suspect than O.J., whose history, they claim, didn't fit the pattern of a murderer's.
In fact, the professor says, O.J. is actually a very good candidate for a man who might murder his ex-wife. The former NFL star is clearly deeply narcissistic: "Some scientists look at the antisocial personality and the narcissistic personality and see a link. The only difference is that the antisocial person lacks a conscience.

"The narcissistic person has an impaired ability to understand other people's feelings and point of view. And if you look at O.J.'s history, that describes him perfectly.... If you look at his combination of narcissism and spousal abuse, which we know he was involved in, then I would say that's a dangerous combination."

He dismisses claims by Dear and his experts that O.J. was not capable of wielding a knife so savagely: "I think that is a false premise. I can certainly imagine O.J. committing such a crime." But he says the biggest howler in Dear's book is that O.J. would risk his own freedom for Jason's sake. As a deeply narcissistic person, O.J. would never take the rap for someone else.

---

Another major factor in Dears theory was based on statements from Shipp which supposedly indicated Jason was stalking Nicole - Shipp says that is exaggerated and taken out of context. Nicole had said she thought it "may" have been Jason...

quote:

---

He's especially angry about Dear's mischaracterizing of his conversations with Brown regarding Jason. In his book Dear relates the startling information that shortly before the murders, Brown confided to Shipp that she believed Jason was spying on her.

Shipp says that's a serious distortion. During their conversation, Shipp says, Brown told him she believed O.J. was watching her to garner information about who she might be dating. She had spotted someone outside her apartment, she told Shipp, and guessed O.J. had been lurking. Later in the conversation, Shipp says, Brown admitted she hadn't clearly seen whoever was outside her apartment. She then said it could have been Jason.

It was clear, Shipp says, that Brown wasn't sure who she'd seen. And she certainly didn't claim that because the figure might have been Jason he had been stalking her. Shipp made this clear to Dear, he says, but it didn't prevent Dear from seizing on it in his book as a crucial piece of "evidence" against Jason. "This turned out to be extremely important to me," Dear writes. "Jason wanted to know who Nicole was seeing. He was jealous, just like his dad."

Shipp says he doesn't think much of Dear's analysis. "Jason has had his problems. But could he kill people? I don't think so."

Shipp was also unhappy with the way Dear used Shipp's words to exonerate O.J. The day after the murders, Shipp had been alone with O.J. in the former footballer's Rockingham bedroom. It was there that O.J., wearing only boxer shorts, admitted he was afraid of taking a polygraph exam because he had had thoughts of killing Brown in the past. O.J. believed such thoughts might confuse the results of such a test. Shipp says it was at that point that he began to think his old friend had committed the murders. Why else would someone really be afraid of taking a lie-detector test?

But what Dear finds more significant is that Shipp, in describing O.J., says he didn't seem to have any cuts or bruises on his body (other than the bandaged finger on his left hand). Dear says whoever killed Goldman would have been bloodied and bruised from the young waiter's desperate attempts at self-defense, and O.J.'s lack of marks proved he hadn't committed that slaying.

But Shipp, who is African-American, says he explained to Dear that this wasn't necessarily so. "I played a lot of football, and I'm a little bit lighter skinned than O.J. But I seldom bruised so that you could see it. It's just not going to show. I explained that to him. But of course he left that out of his book."

Dear also left out another significant fact. Shipp told him that on that same day, June 13, Shipp had also seen Jason at the Rockingham estate. And the young man, Shipp says, also showed no signs of cuts or bruises: "Jason looked fine to me."

---

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/bill-dear-is-full-of-it-and-i-can-prove-it-6684433

quote:

---

There *was* blood in the sink and shower.

Read my post above on the blood.

OJ also got HIMSELF an attorney on the flight back to LA.

OJ told the cops he was in the shower...and out chipping golf balls...and none of that was true. Park SAW HIM return to the house. The guy had no alibi and all the evidence pointed to him. No way that guy goes on trial and loses his reputation and image to take the fall for someone else. The defense NEVER submitted an alternate theory of the crime or potential suspects. Give me a break.

---

Give you a break????

Show me any evidence that blood was found in the sink and shower. Blood was found on the walkway to his house, his bronco, and on his socks.

The defense(through Dr Henry Lee) argued that more blood should have been found in his bathroom and drainage pipes if OJ took a shower to clean off the blood.

On June 13, 1994 OJ Simpson hired Carl Jones to represent his son. Carl Jones is a heavy hitter defense attorney in the Los Angeles area.

Excuse me if that is suspicious as hell. OJ hires a prominent defense attorney for his son the day after the murder.

I don't get the "attacker from behind" theory. It was always assumed Nicole came out to confront OJ for showing up and he attacked her. Then Ron showed up and tried to defend her and OJ started stabbing him.
So instead OJ walked up on them in the courtyard and attacked them both from behind but not at the same time?
I did watch this trial. I had to because I took a semester off and lived with my parents and it's all my mom would watch. Then of course the analysis from Greta and Roger. I didn't think they proved he did it. But who else could have? My aunt even said it was Jason.
Toobin's book is good, but if you remember, he bit and published the early article about fuhrman and racist LAPD. I'd imagine he feels guilty for that and swayed a lot of what he published to make OJ seem more guilty. His book isn't a journalist's account. It's a tell all, from his POV.

What if Jason and OJ killed them together? Does Al Cowlings have an alibi for that time period?

I think he did.

The OJ Tapes show that had the depositions from the Civil trial show AC breaking down after being shown pictures of a beaten Nicole. I believe he knew(at least in his heart) the truth and cried because he was ashamed of himself.

But that's what I don't get. Kardashion said he couldn't get over all the blood. There were drops. We've all probably watched enough CSI to see a reenactment of stabbings. Blood spews and sprays in specific directions. So only the socks were left behind. And there's drops. From blood spewing or blood splattered because he walked thru the scene? Both? This case was before it's time. DNA was too new, for the jury and crime labs. People say the jury wasn't "sophisticated" enough to understand. That's racist. Hell I get that there was blood of all 3 in drops. How did it get there? Marcia and darden said its obvious, duh. The dream team said it was obvious, too. Their theory was more believable at the time.

Just to clarify, I'm talking about the photos Nicole took after OJ beat her.

I'd bet I watched more of the trial than 95% of the people in this thread. I can't say I remember the exact details of the case very well, so I can't put up a good factual argument about blood evidence, etc., but what I can say is that I started off an O.J. fan, and ended up believing he was 100% Guilty.

Read the info out there about the civil trial where he was found "liable" for the deaths. Including the Juice's own testimony.
He did it.

OJ didn't have time to take a full shower- Park and Kato were waiting outside. He called down to the gate (after park saw him cross the lawn and enter the house). He changed his clothes and took the bloody clothes and knife in the duffel with him to the airport. That bag was never found.

According to the grand jury reports there was blood evidence in the sink traps but not of quality to take DNA testing.

I believe the theory of the crime was Nicole was attacked and knocked down and then he fought Goldman. That's consistent with the confusion on her head. The area where Goldman was murdered was really tiny - he was cornered. The killer then went back to slit Nicole's throat - the shoe prints on her back confirm that. most of the blood at the scene was likely post mortem.

quote:

---

It's unfair to say the jury only deliberated 4 hours. They had been sequestered for 8 plus months. Plenty of time to decide what they would vote.

---

I've never been a part of a jury but I have to agree with this statement (at least for myself). I think I would have had my mind made up by then. Closing arguments wouldn't have made much of a difference to me.

I was too busy back then to follow the trial. Plus, I typically get turned off by the news as it is. I may start watching some of these high profile trials a bit closer as they're taking place.

Thanks for the insight. Even though it's a closed case, it's still an interesting discussion.

The reaction by Garcetti when the reporter asked if they were going to find the real killer was gut wrenching.

Any guesses to what next season's trial/crime will be?

Next season is based on events from hurricane Katrina

quote:

---

Next season is based on events from hurricane Katrina

---

Seriously?

Yes. It's by the same guy who did nip/tuck and American horror story. The first seasons are great and then they get progressively worse.

Edit: This is a better article

[url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/american-crime-story-season2-details-881282][/url]Here's the article about the next season. Should be interesting. It'll be based of real people but the actors won't look like the actual people. Another difference stated is that we won't know the ending like we did with the OJ trial.

American Crime Story: Season 2

Maybe I am not comprehending what they will portray, will it be crimes committed during the disaster or will be the disaster itself as a crime.

quote:

---

What if Jason and OJ killed them together? Does Al Cowlings have an alibi for that time period?

---

If this is true, or if it was just Jason - then why was there no evidence of Jason's blood at the crime scene? I may have missed something along the way, but wasn't there only three sets of blood at the scene - Nicole's, Ron's and OJ's? I don't remember them saying there was another set of DNA there - even for an unidentified person.