29-10-2010, 04:08 PM
Well, here's another issue where Jack and I disagree. I ALSO
watched the case every single day PLUS Gerald's excellent
discussions with experts EVERYDAY. I even taped them and
the house started to fill up with tapes! Sarah and Jan would
threaten to TAPE OVER my O.J. tapes if I didn't behave! The
fact of the matter is that I blew a sabbatical over this case.
I have no doubt that O.J. committed the crime. Nada! None.
There was a mountain of unrefuted blood evidence at the scene
of the crime, in his Bronco, leading up to his house, and even
in his shower. A driver had witnessed a near-collision between
her condo and Rockingham when a white Bronco without lights
on came into an intersection and, because there was a traffic
jam, the driver was yelling and screaming for the other cars
to clear the way. The witness reported that the driver was O.J.
This most important witness was not introduced by Marsha during
the trial because she had been paid $5,000 by a tabloid for her
story. This was an incredible blunder, but she thought she had
a rock-solid case that didn't need her testimony. She was wrong.
Jason would not have had motive, means, or opportunity. Why
would he have killed Ron and Nicole? None of which I am aware.
This was a crime of passion and rage, brutal, savage, and cruel.
The jury, of course, was incompetent. During an interview with
Geraldo, the woman foreman, in response to the question, "How
did you explain away the blood evidence?", replied, "We didn't!"
From what I can discern, they seem to have believed that if any
part of the prosecution's case was questionable, then they had the
right to dismiss it all! This was one of the most unqualified juries
in American history. When it was reheard as a civilian case, the
attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, did a far better job presenting evidence.
Here is a pretty good summary of the case, including evidence not
presented, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
If Jack wants to make his case for Jason, it would be interesting to
hear it. But unless he was at the intersection where Jill Shively saw
the white Bronco involved in the traffic jam as O.J. was frantically
attempting to get away from the scene of the crime, I doubt that his
case is going to be persuasive. In retrospect, I can hardly believe
the extent to which the country was obsessed with the trial. They
could have knocked off Ft. Knox and no one would have noticed!
watched the case every single day PLUS Gerald's excellent
discussions with experts EVERYDAY. I even taped them and
the house started to fill up with tapes! Sarah and Jan would
threaten to TAPE OVER my O.J. tapes if I didn't behave! The
fact of the matter is that I blew a sabbatical over this case.
I have no doubt that O.J. committed the crime. Nada! None.
There was a mountain of unrefuted blood evidence at the scene
of the crime, in his Bronco, leading up to his house, and even
in his shower. A driver had witnessed a near-collision between
her condo and Rockingham when a white Bronco without lights
on came into an intersection and, because there was a traffic
jam, the driver was yelling and screaming for the other cars
to clear the way. The witness reported that the driver was O.J.
This most important witness was not introduced by Marsha during
the trial because she had been paid $5,000 by a tabloid for her
story. This was an incredible blunder, but she thought she had
a rock-solid case that didn't need her testimony. She was wrong.
Jason would not have had motive, means, or opportunity. Why
would he have killed Ron and Nicole? None of which I am aware.
This was a crime of passion and rage, brutal, savage, and cruel.
The jury, of course, was incompetent. During an interview with
Geraldo, the woman foreman, in response to the question, "How
did you explain away the blood evidence?", replied, "We didn't!"
From what I can discern, they seem to have believed that if any
part of the prosecution's case was questionable, then they had the
right to dismiss it all! This was one of the most unqualified juries
in American history. When it was reheard as a civilian case, the
attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, did a far better job presenting evidence.
Here is a pretty good summary of the case, including evidence not
presented, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
If Jack wants to make his case for Jason, it would be interesting to
hear it. But unless he was at the intersection where Jill Shively saw
the white Bronco involved in the traffic jam as O.J. was frantically
attempting to get away from the scene of the crime, I doubt that his
case is going to be persuasive. In retrospect, I can hardly believe
the extent to which the country was obsessed with the trial. They
could have knocked off Ft. Knox and no one would have noticed!
Jack White Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Jack,
I'll assume that you've read Killing Time, Donald Freed's engrossing take on the Simpson affair. If so, I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Charles
Charles...yes, I bought KILLING TIME in 1996 and read it
carefully...but that was 14 years ago, so I do not recall
details. I do recall that the Freed book had all the facts
correct as I remembered them. My memory of the events
and trial, WHICH I WATCHED EVERY DAY ON COURT TV, is
much sharper. Watching the actual events made it clear
to me that OJ was not the killer, but he knew more than
was apparent. The OJ case is one where POPULAR OPINION
prevailed over evidence...much like people who think
LHO killed JFK.
More important than KILLING TIME is the Bill Dear book,
OJ WAS GUILTY, BUT NOT OF MURDER. Dear, a private
investigator, actually solved the crime...coming to the
same conclusion I had. I think his book is now available
online.
Jack