advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: pRICE cUBE
Date: August 22, 2020 03:57PM
I had always wondered if OJ didn't commit the crimes but knew who did. His statement, "find the actual killer or killers" always struck me as odd and I could never put a finger on it. I have not made any conclusions after watching this video but it seems to raise some interesting questions involving these murders.

One thing that alway puzzled me is how very little blood was in OJ's Bronco because the murders were brutal multiple stabbings. Blood should have been everywhere on the person committing the cat and then in the vehicle used as a get away.


This is an old video, probably full of holes but there are some interesting points. I am not stating any of this is fact. Maybe it explains whey OJ's defense team was able to plant so many seeds of doubt in the prosecution case. Some of the "evidence" raises some interesting questions. Video is possibly NSFW, they show some gruesome evidence photos.
[www.youtube.com]



Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2020 05:58PM by pRICE cUBE.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders?
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: August 22, 2020 04:12PM
Are you suggesting that Kato did it?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders?
Posted by: pRICE cUBE
Date: August 22, 2020 04:15PM
Quote
Sarcany
Are you suggesting that Kato did it?



Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders?
Posted by: Buzz
Date: August 22, 2020 04:19PM
OJ knows...
==
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders?
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: August 22, 2020 04:20PM
Quote
pRICE cUBE
Quote
Sarcany
Are you suggesting that Kato did it?


All based on a crazy book full of made up stuff. Every allegation was looked into and discredited by the Village Voice.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders?
Posted by: pRICE cUBE
Date: August 22, 2020 04:25PM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
pRICE cUBE
Quote
Sarcany
Are you suggesting that Kato did it?


All based on a crazy book full of made up stuff. Every allegation was looked into and discredited by the Village Voice.


Found the link you mentioned. Looks like it is a long story. I will give it a steady read [www.villagevoice.com]

I do still wonder about the lack of blood in the Bronco though. That murder scene was crazy mess.



Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2020 04:28PM by pRICE cUBE.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders?
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: August 22, 2020 04:41PM
Quote
pRICE cUBE
I do still wonder about the lack of blood in the Bronco though. That murder scene was crazy mess.

I have not discounted the possibility that Kato did it.

Just look at those dead killer-eyes. He can't even look up at the camera.









Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2020 04:42PM by Sarcany.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: August 22, 2020 04:55PM
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2020 04:58PM by Dennis S.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: August 22, 2020 05:07PM
Quote
Dennis S
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.

Dunno if they were too small. He was already wearing cotton gloves while trying to put skin-tight driving gloves on over them.

The prosecutors set themselves up for failure. They were focused on making good TV and securing book/movie rights rather than serving their oath and duty to the law and justice.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2020 05:08PM by Sarcany.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: pRICE cUBE
Date: August 22, 2020 05:10PM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Dennis S
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.

Dunno if they were too small. He was already wearing cotton gloves while trying to put skin-tight driving gloves on over them.

The prosecutors set themselves up for failure. They were focused on making good TV and securing book/movie rights rather than serving their oath and duty to the law and justice.


Is it your assertion that OJ committed the murders and the investigators/prosecution botched it?



Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: August 22, 2020 05:19PM
Quote
pRICE cUBE
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Dennis S
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.

Dunno if they were too small. He was already wearing cotton gloves while trying to put skin-tight driving gloves on over them.

The prosecutors set themselves up for failure. They were focused on making good TV and securing book/movie rights rather than serving their oath and duty to the law and justice.


Is it your assertion that OJ committed the murders and the investigators/prosecution botched it?

Not both.

Just that they botched it.

So did the cops who failed to secure and document the evidence thoroughly with clear chain-of-custody, leaving them open to convincing allegations of tampering.

I agree with the outcome of the civil trial, that it's more likely than not that he committed murder.

I haven't seen evidence that -- to my mind -- is compelling "beyond a reasonable doubt."



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: MrNoBody
Date: August 22, 2020 05:48PM
The prosecutors set themselves up for failure.

True. Depending on at least one racist detective from a corrupt police dept. to
take the stand & perjure himself and an inept forensics unit doomed the case.

I feel bad for the Browns and Goldmans. The police and the prosecutors sold them
on it being OJ, nobody else could have done it, we got our man, don't have to look
any further. They probably said something like "Trust us, it's a slam dunk, and
we're going to fry his %!@(7& ass."



39°36'17"N 75°44'43"W

DuckDuckGo
The search engine that doesn't track you.

DemComm Records 2021 Greatest Hits
includes:
Taxman by Joe & Nancy's Rich Ice Cream Band
The Humpty Dance by The Harris-Brown Hookup
Lets Spend The Night Together by The Fang-Swalwell Gang
Díaz-Canel Is A Friend of Ours by The AOC Squad
My Old Kentucky Retirement Home by MitchMcC & The Soggy Boxer Boys
Burning Down The House by Merrick & The Goons
Back In the USSR by Bernie's Red Square Trio

patriot smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: wave rider
Date: August 22, 2020 05:55PM
So the gloves were too small for OJ. Hmmm… Seems like I remember mention in the news of someone with tiny hands…



=wr=
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: chopper
Date: August 22, 2020 06:58PM
A lot of younger people like to go ghost hunting or go to places where strange things have happened. Oooooooeeeeeeeeeoooo.

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that ghosts don't really exist.

The world is FULL of monsters. And the police, as seen in the golden state killer case, and etc, are largely incompetent. Monsters walk the streets.

OJ, a monster, did it. His BS story about cutting his hand on a broken glass the same night ... his jealous rages, etc.

This stuff happens all the time. No need to go searching for ghosts, kids. You probably live two blocks from someone like :

Jacob Wetterling

Donnie Bloom

Jodi H
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: Carm
Date: August 22, 2020 07:08PM
Didn’t you see/read the speculation about how the leather gloves wouldn’t fit over the latex gloves, especially if they were tight/snug fitting in the first place (golf or driving gloves).
An article: [www.bustle.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2020 07:13PM by Carm.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: August 22, 2020 07:20PM
Quote
Carm
Didn’t you see/read the speculation about how the leather gloves wouldn’t fit over the latex gloves, especially if they were tight/snug fitting in the first place (golf or driving gloves).
An article: [www.bustle.com]

What happens to fine glove leather when it get soaked and the left to dry naturally?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: Carm
Date: August 22, 2020 07:40PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Carm
Didn’t you see/read the speculation about how the leather gloves wouldn’t fit over the latex gloves, especially if they were tight/snug fitting in the first place (golf or driving gloves).
An article: [www.bustle.com]

What happens to fine glove leather when it get soaked and the left to dry naturally?

Was that even addressed? I don’t remember, I was in my second year in college.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: MarkD
Date: August 22, 2020 09:00PM
The interesting story is about OJ's shoes and the civil trial where he was found liable for civil damages. Pictures emerged after the criminal case, but in time for the civil case. OJ denied owning the shoes and got impeached with pictures of him in the shoes. Great story:

[www.usatoday.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: deckeda
Date: August 22, 2020 09:52PM
That was a good read. Not sure I agree that the criminal trial would have resulted in the same verdict, but it certainly could have.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: davester
Date: August 23, 2020 12:23AM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
pRICE cUBE
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Dennis S
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.

Dunno if they were too small. He was already wearing cotton gloves while trying to put skin-tight driving gloves on over them.

The prosecutors set themselves up for failure. They were focused on making good TV and securing book/movie rights rather than serving their oath and duty to the law and justice.


Is it your assertion that OJ committed the murders and the investigators/prosecution botched it?

Not both.

Just that they botched it.

So did the cops who failed to secure and document the evidence thoroughly with clear chain-of-custody, leaving them open to convincing allegations of tampering.

I agree with the outcome of the civil trial, that it's more likely than not that he committed murder.

I haven't seen evidence that -- to my mind -- is compelling "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Ditto. The not guilty verdict in the criminal trial was based on botched police work and idiotic decisions by the prosecutors. The most ridiculous thing was trying to get him to put on gloves that had shrunk due to getting soaked then dried. It was patently obvious that they were ruined. Sadly, this all led to there being a very tiny, but finite, amount of reasonable doubt. IMHO the chance that he is not a murderer are about the same as the chance that bigfoot is real.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: pRICE cUBE
Date: August 23, 2020 12:45AM
It probably didn’t help that they had a guy who has some actor training emphasize the gloves didn’t fit with use of body language and facial expressions. Like the suspect himself was going to make sure those fit nicely using his own powerr.



Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: August 23, 2020 03:51AM
Is it your assertion that OJ committed the murders and the investigators/prosecution botched it?


I believe that's exactly what happened.

He got away with murder.

I don't believe it was first degree murder, but second degree.

Intent is almost always impossible to prove.

Either the suspect/defendant demonstrates it clearly or the prosecution shows sufficient circumstances that allows a jury to believe it reasonable that he/she committed the crime.

The prosecution couldn't pull it off.

As for Fuhrman, he should have just said 'Yeah, I said it. So what.'

Ito make the trial a circus.

And just a split second after the jury announced the verdict, OJ turned to Goldman and gave him a sneer that was the final bit of confirmation for me.

No, I don't think he planned to kill anybody that night, but there's no doubt in my mind that he did.





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW)
Posted by: Ken Sp.
Date: August 23, 2020 11:14AM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Carm
Didn’t you see/read the speculation about how the leather gloves wouldn’t fit over the latex gloves, especially if they were tight/snug fitting in the first place (golf or driving gloves).
An article: [www.bustle.com]

What happens to fine glove leather when it get soaked and the left to dry naturally?

There was also some reference made to stopping medication.
[www.nynjcmd.com]

Those gloves, damning evidence reputed to belong to Simpson, have long been a source of controversy in a trial that recently marked its 20-year anniversary.

However, more has come to light regarding the gloves that has sparked additional controversy. In one of two recent highly-acclaimed documentaries, O.J.: Made in America, Mike Gilbert, Simpson’s agent at the time of his arrest, revealed a discussion the two had regarding the gloves in evidence. If Simpson feared being asked to don the gloves, Gilbert suggested to him that he stop taking the medicine he used for arthritis in his hands. This would cause his hands to stiffen and swell. Simpson reputedly stopped his medication. The implication is that this is part of the reason why when Simpson was asked by the prosecution to try on the gloves, they appeared too small for the defendant’s hands.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 97
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020