Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who killed Ron and Nicole?
#31
I always read between the lines for clues on many things.
A between-the-lines activity of OJ attorney Barry Scheck
was that he began a non-profit activist group of law school
students called THE INNOCENCE PROJECT immediately after
the OJ case, to help free wrongly convicted prisoners, many
of them on death row. I think he saw how easy it was for
someone to be wrongly prosecuted.

I believe that all of OJ's Dream Team attorneys risked their
reputations to defend OJ because they knew the true nature
of his plight. To me, this raises an ethical question of whether
the lawyers were participating in obstruction of justice, though
they believed their immediate task was just.

Jack
Reply
#32
Jack White Wrote:I always read between the lines for clues on many things.
A between-the-lines activity of OJ attorney Barry Scheck
was that he began a non-profit activist group of law school
students called THE INNOCENCE PROJECT immediately after
the OJ case, to help free wrongly convicted prisoners, many
of them on death row. I think he saw how easy it was for
someone to be wrongly prosecuted.
...
Jack

Good point. I previously assumed that Barry Scheck started The Innocence Project to feel better about himself for representing a clearly guilty OJ. But now that I realize OJ didn't do it I see it differently of course.

How could Jason Simpson let his father suffer so much for his crimes?
Reply
#33
Myra Bronstein Wrote:
Jack White Wrote:I always read between the lines for clues on many things.
A between-the-lines activity of OJ attorney Barry Scheck
was that he began a non-profit activist group of law school
students called THE INNOCENCE PROJECT immediately after
the OJ case, to help free wrongly convicted prisoners, many
of them on death row. I think he saw how easy it was for
someone to be wrongly prosecuted.
...
Jack

Good point. I previously assumed that Barry Scheck started The Innocence Project to feel better about himself for representing a clearly guilty OJ. But now that I realize OJ didn't do it I see it differently of course.

How could Jason Simpson let his father suffer so much for his crimes?

As Dear pointed out, he has always depended on his father
to get him out of jams. This was no different. In many ways
he was very childlike, and had a child's view of stepmom Nicole as
belonging to him. Lots of jealousy and anger...leading to rage.
If he confessed, the death penalty was likely, unless an insanity
plea worked. He had always taken from OJ; this was just another
case of it.

Jack
Reply
#34
Magda,

You are so right! And I am grateful to Jack for pressing me. I would never have thought I could be wrong about OJ! But I was completely off-base. I lost a sabbatical to this case and never--not once!--suspected that Jason could be the killer. I am now COMPLETELY CONVINCED. His purported alibi was a fake and his mental and moral condition--including his abuse of drugs and inducing his girlfriend to say he had been with her--were only parts of the problem. Nicole had promised to come to Jackson's where he cooked--and when she decided not to come, he tracked her down, simmering with rage. When Ron showed up, he felt she had put herself ahead of him--and he blew a gasket. He was used to using knives and carried a double-bladed one with him. He knocked Nicole out and savaged Ron. The reconstruction is completely convincing. He had motive, means, and opportunity. OJ took the hit for his son--perhaps the least selfish act of his life. The evidence is there and it is powerful, detailed, and convincing. The LAPD has no interest, since it would demonstrate that it can't handle a serious case. It was complicit in Bobby's death, I am sure, and this one included lacing OJ's sox with tainted blood. I am astonished that I could have been so wrong--but Jack was right! This case proves like no other that we must keep our minds open for new evidence and new hypotheses and be prepared to reject those we previously accepted and accept ones we previously rejected--even if it was only tacitly because we had never seriously considered them. This is one for the books! The more I watched, the more I believed. It was astonishing.

Jim

Magda Hassan Wrote:I've watched it Jack. It is quite a convincing case he puts forward there. I was an OJ did it believer before but not now. It is a shame though he has had no interest from the legal system there. Like the Justice Dept with JFK. They've gone through the machinations of an investigation and trial and that's that. End of story for them.
Reply
#35
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Magda,

You are so right! And I am grateful to Jack for pressing me. I would never have thought I could be wrong about OJ! But I was completely off-base. I lost a sabbatical to this case and never--not once!--suspected that Jason could be the killer. I am now COMPLETELY CONVINCED. His purported alibi was a fake and his mental and moral condition--including his abuse of drugs and inducing his girlfriend to say he had been with her--were only parts of the problem. Nicole had promised to come to Jackson's where he cooked--and when she decided not to come, he tracked her down, simmering with rage. When Ron showed up, he felt she had put herself ahead of him--and he blew a gasket. He was used to using knives and carried a double-bladed one with him. He knocked Nicole out and savaged Ron. The reconstruction is completely convincing. He had motive, means, and opportunity. OJ took the hit for his son--perhaps the least selfish act of his life. The evidence is there and it is powerful, detailed, and convincing. The LAPD has no interest, since it would demonstrate that it can't handle a serious case. It was complicit in Bobby's death, I am sure, and this one included lacing OJ's sox with tainted blood. I am astonished that I could have been so wrong--but Jack was right! This case proves like no other that we must keep our minds open for new evidence and new hypotheses and be prepared to reject those we previously accepted and accept ones we previously rejected--even if it was only tacitly because we had never seriously considered them. This is one for the books! The more I watched, the more I believed. It was astonishing.

Jim

Magda Hassan Wrote:I've watched it Jack. It is quite a convincing case he puts forward there. I was an OJ did it believer before but not now. It is a shame though he has had no interest from the legal system there. Like the Justice Dept with JFK. They've gone through the machinations of an investigation and trial and that's that. End of story for them.

Thanks, Jim!

I hope others are encouraged to watch by your review!

It is not a sin to be wrong; it is sinful to not admit error
when the truth is finally recognized.

Now, are there other beliefs you may want to review
for false beliefs?

Thanks.

Jack
Reply
#36
Makes me wonder about the Las Vegas charges against OJ. Was he set up?
Reply
#37
Jack White Wrote:It is not a sin to be wrong; it is sinful to not admit error
when the truth is finally recognized.
This is so true but some people have too much invested in their original theory, ego or pride or whatever, that they can never admit they were wrong for some reason.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#38
Myra Bronstein Wrote:Makes me wonder about the Las Vegas charges against OJ. Was he set up?

Obviously!
Reply
#39
Jack White Wrote:
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Magda,

You are so right! And I am grateful to Jack for pressing me. I would never have thought I could be wrong about OJ! But I was completely off-base. I lost a sabbatical to this case and never--not once!--suspected that Jason could be the killer. I am now COMPLETELY CONVINCED. His purported alibi was a fake and his mental and moral condition--including his abuse of drugs and inducing his girlfriend to say he had been with her--were only parts of the problem. Nicole had promised to come to Jackson's where he cooked--and when she decided not to come, he tracked her down, simmering with rage. When Ron showed up, he felt she had put herself ahead of him--and he blew a gasket. He was used to using knives and carried a double-bladed one with him. He knocked Nicole out and savaged Ron. The reconstruction is completely convincing. He had motive, means, and opportunity. OJ took the hit for his son--perhaps the least selfish act of his life. The evidence is there and it is powerful, detailed, and convincing. The LAPD has no interest, since it would demonstrate that it can't handle a serious case. It was complicit in Bobby's death, I am sure, and this one included lacing OJ's sox with tainted blood. I am astonished that I could have been so wrong--but Jack was right! This case proves like no other that we must keep our minds open for new evidence and new hypotheses and be prepared to reject those we previously accepted and accept ones we previously rejected--even if it was only tacitly because we had never seriously considered them. This is one for the books! The more I watched, the more I believed. It was astonishing.

Jim

Magda Hassan Wrote:I've watched it Jack. It is quite a convincing case he puts forward there. I was an OJ did it believer before but not now. It is a shame though he has had no interest from the legal system there. Like the Justice Dept with JFK. They've gone through the machinations of an investigation and trial and that's that. End of story for them.

Thanks, Jim!

I hope others are encouraged to watch by your review!

It is not a sin to be wrong; it is sinful to not admit error
when the truth is finally recognized.

Now, are there other beliefs you may want to review
for false beliefs?

Thanks.

Jack

Now that Jim has experienced an epiphany regarding OJ, I hope
he will follow up by reading HARVEY & LEE to see whether his
hasty judgment re the book will undergo a similar revelation.

Jack
Reply
#40
Jack White Wrote:
Myra Bronstein Wrote:Makes me wonder about the Las Vegas charges against OJ. Was he set up?

Obviously!
I do not think he was set up in the Las Vegas case but I do believe that the jury convicted him because they thought he got away with murder in Nicole and Ron's case. The Goldman family needs to see this video.

Dawn
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Owner of Stalin museum killed in Russia Magda Hassan 0 1,766 01-05-2010, 12:31 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  50 things that are being killed ny internet Bernice Moore 0 1,816 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Portuguese journalist killed in New York hotel Ed Jewett 0 2,280 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Five Russian scientists who helped Iran with nuclear secrets killed in plane crash Magda Hassan 0 3,866 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  The 'White Widow' Killed by Russian Sniper Lauren Johnson 0 5,368 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)