Yeah I've heard this before. Trust me, his didn't have motive and there is no empirical evidence to support this notion. That's why he was never charged and put on trial.
OJ Simpson to be released from prison.
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
Yeah I've heard this before. Trust me, his didn't have motive and there is no empirical evidence to support this notion. That's why he was never charged and put on trial.
It's actually a more plausible theory than it first sounds if you're interested here's a quick list of some of the bits that support the OJ covering for Jason theory:
1: Jason had no alibi for the time of the murder and was angry with Nicole.
2: OJ hired a top lawyer for Jason days after the murder despite him being the only suspect.
3: Ron Goldman fought for his life, the 3rd degree black belt had defensive wounds on his hands and multiple bruising on his hands and arms from striking someone. OJ was stripped naked by the LAPD had zero bruising on his body, plus he was physically broken down after his NFL career.
4: The cops found a knitted hat with hairs from a black male and a dog. OJ didn’t have a dog and didn’t wear knitted hats, but Jason had a dog and wore knitted hats often.
5: DNA was found under Nicole’s fingernails that didn’t match OJ’s, but they never tested it against Jason’s DNA.
6: In Jason's storage locker the police found a knife that matched the knife that was used at the scene. The knife that the cops thought OJ used did not fit any of the wound patterns.
7: The LAPD found 15 unknown fingerprints at the scene and none matched OJ, they never compared them to Jason Simpson known fingerprints.
8: Jason was off his antipsychotic meds at the time which meant he was liable to blackout, hear voices and just go crazy at any moment.
9: Jason had almost killed an ex-girlfriend with a knife, assaulted another girlfriend and came after his boss with a kitchen knife. He was trained in hand-to-hand combat as well as field knife training while attending the Army and Navy Academy. OJ also was squeamish around blood and there was a lot of blood at the scene.
2: OJ hired a top lawyer for Jason days after the murder despite him being the only suspect.
3: Ron Goldman fought for his life, the 3rd degree black belt had defensive wounds on his hands and multiple bruising on his hands and arms from striking someone. OJ was stripped naked by the LAPD had zero bruising on his body, plus he was physically broken down after his NFL career.
4: The cops found a knitted hat with hairs from a black male and a dog. OJ didn’t have a dog and didn’t wear knitted hats, but Jason had a dog and wore knitted hats often.
5: DNA was found under Nicole’s fingernails that didn’t match OJ’s, but they never tested it against Jason’s DNA.
6: In Jason's storage locker the police found a knife that matched the knife that was used at the scene. The knife that the cops thought OJ used did not fit any of the wound patterns.
7: The LAPD found 15 unknown fingerprints at the scene and none matched OJ, they never compared them to Jason Simpson known fingerprints.
8: Jason was off his antipsychotic meds at the time which meant he was liable to blackout, hear voices and just go crazy at any moment.
9: Jason had almost killed an ex-girlfriend with a knife, assaulted another girlfriend and came after his boss with a kitchen knife. He was trained in hand-to-hand combat as well as field knife training while attending the Army and Navy Academy. OJ also was squeamish around blood and there was a lot of blood at the scene.
Yeah sounds like a conspiracy theory. There is a good reason OJ was put on trial and not his son. It's called evidence. The evidence they collected pointed to OJ and not his son. You can theorise all you like but you can't deny the evidence that OJ was the murderer.
No it doesn't because there's no conspiracy alleged/implied. Unless you think that OJ deliberately declined to point the finger towards the more likely suspect because he thought he was guilty and wanted to protect him, but then that's not essentially a conspiracy if it's just him involved.
As above there's actually more evidence/plausibility linking Jason to the killing than OJ, the police just tunnel visioned on OJ.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
To be honest, as far as i am concerned the appeal should be completely separate from the murder charges. Whether you think he should have been charged or not is separate to this charge and irrelevant considering it is done and dusted. If there is new evidence, then fair enough have a new trial but you cant keep pulling people into court until you get the result you want or increase the severity of their punishment based on a crime they were previously acquitted of without bringing something new to the trial.
Secondly, when you look at just this crime (the one he was found guilty of), the sentencing seems disproportionately high. It is obvious that in determining the punishment, there was perhaps some bias involved due to the previous crime he was acquitted of and as i said before, it should be kept separate. The appeal for parole is to assess whether the time served is appropriate or not. Do i think the full amount of time is appropriate given just the robbery event related charges? I don't really to be honest. Now if you ask me whether i think OJ should be locked up for longer when taking account everything i would probably say yes given that the proof is irrefutable but at the moment it is not.
With the silly tinted view we have due to the media relaying a myriad of things about OJ and his cases, i would say that i am entirely unqualified to make a estimate on whether he has had his time or not and that everyone else on the internet whether calling from his head or not, is in the same position.
Secondly, when you look at just this crime (the one he was found guilty of), the sentencing seems disproportionately high. It is obvious that in determining the punishment, there was perhaps some bias involved due to the previous crime he was acquitted of and as i said before, it should be kept separate. The appeal for parole is to assess whether the time served is appropriate or not. Do i think the full amount of time is appropriate given just the robbery event related charges? I don't really to be honest. Now if you ask me whether i think OJ should be locked up for longer when taking account everything i would probably say yes given that the proof is irrefutable but at the moment it is not.
With the silly tinted view we have due to the media relaying a myriad of things about OJ and his cases, i would say that i am entirely unqualified to make a estimate on whether he has had his time or not and that everyone else on the internet whether calling from his head or not, is in the same position.
Well I disagree. So lets drop it.
The easy way to look at it objectively, is not to think of them a "OJ Simpson the guy who everyone knows got away with murders" and "Jason Simpson the guy most people uninterested in the case have never heard of", but to think of them simply as suspect A and suspect B then compare them to some of the evidence:
Evidence:
One of the victims was trained in hand to hand combat and fought extensively with his attacker.
A hat was found at the scene with dog hair on it.
Fingerprints were found at the scene.
DNA was found at the scene.
Suspect A:
Has no motive but is mentally ill and off his meds, known for violent outbursts with knives including an attempted murder.
Physically fit, trained in hand to hand combat plus knife combat by the army.
Owned a knife that did match the type used at the scene.
Fingerprints never tested.
DNA never tested.
Frequently wore hats like that found at the scene.
Owned a dog.
Suspect B:
Ran from police.
Physically unfit and suffering from nagging old injuries, known to be squeamish around blood.
Had no bruises/marks on him from any altercation.
Owned a knife that did not match the type used at the scene.
Fingerprints did not match those found at the scene.
DNA did not match that found under the victims fingernails.
Did not wear hats like the type found at the scene.
Did not own a dog.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 931
- Location
- West Sussex
I watched that BBC Four 5 part documentary and a member of the Jury said the truth when she said the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt he was guilty of murder.
Based on the BBC four documentary OJ Simpson had a history of violence towards his girlfriends and especially towards his wife. There was no mention of the implication of one of his sons in the crime.
Personally i think he did do it but there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, the fact he is so keenly watched will probably safeguard against anything similar happening again.
Based on the BBC four documentary OJ Simpson had a history of violence towards his girlfriends and especially towards his wife. There was no mention of the implication of one of his sons in the crime.
Personally i think he did do it but there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, the fact he is so keenly watched will probably safeguard against anything similar happening again.
Like I said ubersonic. I disagree. I'll take the prosecutors word over yours every time. They had access to the evidence and decided OJ was the culprit. You are just some random guy on the internet with a wacky conspiracy theory. Thanks for your input but I'm sticking to the EMPIRICAL evidence.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I have absolutely no idea if what ubersonic is saying is even true, years after these things happen you get websites that post completely incorrect information, I haven't watched the documentary and can barely remember the trial, but that information(if it was accurate to the case) heavily implicates the son over OJ.
However it's also worth noting that DAs are just as corrupt as anyone else, if they are running for office they'll prosecute a case with dodgy evidence because they know it will get attention. If OJ was trying to protect his son then running from the police would be a pretty easy way to generate media attention which would have a DA salivating at the idea of a case of the century type trial. DAs do all kinds of shady corrupt things, running for political office(of which district DA is a elected position afaik) means you may prosecute a guy with two joints as someone who you insist intended to distribute to get your numbers up and look tough on drug crime if that is what they think the campaign needs, while 6 months before or 2 months after the election the same guy gets a fine/warning and no significant charges because it's a minor crime and doesn't hold the DAs interest any further.
OJs son would still have been a fairly decent trial but no where near OJ himself, there are absolutely reasons DAs would put OJ on trial even with weak evidence. There are just thousands of cases in which BS evidence has been used because a DA thought one guy made for a better story to sell to the jury when someone else looked more guilty.
Again going back to ubers post and your insistence on empirical evidence, if those things he said are true why didn't the DA test the skin cells under her fingernails, why not test the hair, etc? Sometimes when you presume the evidence won't help your case they'll simply not do the test because then the evidence is murky, why not test DNA samples and see if they match OJ, if they don't your case is over, while they are untested they could match OJ or could match anyone else. Not testing DNA when you are able to is usually a sign of the detectives or prosecutor not thinking that evidence will help.
The, forget her name, was it Kucher or something, American girl in Italy. The DA absolutely rail roaded her, had basically a confession from who did it and then lied his way through a few trials trying to insist tiny little meaningless things all pointed to her guilt. DAs are the same the world over, they have ambition, want promotions and will absolutely prosecute the wrong people to get attention.
How much attention would that case in Italy have gotten if it was the one immigrant who confessed and had real evidence against him go to trial, confession, guilty, quick trial, murder but not bad. Instead it became a huge international story for which he was constantly in the press and known worldwide.
Like I said, I don't know if Ubers information is correct, I'm merely addressing the idea that because the DA prosecuted OJ instead of someone else that you can take that as evidence itself of their belief in OJ as the best suspect, the world isn't that simple.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,489
- Location
- La France
OJ should get a trip on Old Sparky just for inflicting the Kardashians on us.
For what it's worth I found the sites with the info quickly because I saw a documentry on it in the 90's so knew what to Google.
Apologies I'm really really sorry, I made an error in that post due to copy/pasting similar lines then editing to save time, they DID test the DNA found under her fingernails against OJ and compared his fingerprints to those found at the scene, neither matched.
I never realised that until I watched the documentary.
Some great points made about the jury in the documentary;
- Only 'economiclly inactive' people were available for a trial of that length
- Chose a predominately black area to select jurors from to apease public opinion on police racism
- Terrible screening of them...some were black panthers!
They even replaced a load of photos in his house showing OJ with Black people, Vs all the famous white people that were on the walls before, in an attempt to appeal to the jury during a site visit.
Mind absolutely boggles. The entire trial was a disaster.