New OJ Simpson Tapes

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: bronco60

"Very likely" doesnt really work too well in court.

ATS not being a court or a jury requiring a reasonable doubt standard, but a net discussion group involved in casual discussion, that observation proves--er, what?

a reply to: bronco60

I can appreciate that I suppose.

I should state that I dont work well with "very likely" either.

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: bronco60

I can appreciate that I suppose.

I should state that I dont work well with "very likely" either.

The work, of course, does not stop with one piece of highly damning evidence ("very likely" is just me being
very charitable). Re-read the thread for a few (of the many) other relevant details.

Or not. If it doesn't interest you, oh well.

"highly damning evidence" is also being cheritable, or as suggested, would have been admissed into court had the prosecution considered it substantiable and not dismissable.

I have to ask, are you familiar with the Jody Arias trials? It was a case study of a narcissistic murderer where many "highly damning evidence" never made it to use as one, the prosecution didnt wish to risk mudding the jury over it, and two, the evidence being questionable and unsupported by relevant facts in the case.

originally posted by: smirkley
"highly damning evidence" is also being cheritable, or as suggested, would have been admissed into court had the prosecution considered it substantiable and not dismissable.

I have to ask, are you familiar with the Jody Arias trials? It was a case study of a narcissistic murderer where many "highly damning evidence" never made it to use as one, the prosecution didnt wish to risk mudding the jury over it, and two, the evidence being questionable and unsupported by relevant facts in the case.

I know virtually nothing about that trial, I'm not really into so-called "true crime" (before the Simpson case, that is).
I have a moderately vague sense she was guilty based on my "passing by the TV and hearing snippets" way.
I would certainly hope if they had the goods they would not be presenting "questionable" etc. evidence (but the reality is, they will if they think they can successfully sell it to a jury).

Here's what I think (from your post) you are missing as a basic fact: Neither the prosecution nor the cops ever did a proper check on Jason. None of the stuff Dear produced was looked at or even known. As even the detectives have said, they thought he had an alibi, made no real check to verify it, and that was that. There was no analysis of sustainability or truth or whatever. They did not look at him, and locked in to Simpson from day one.

This is not at all unheard-of behavior, nor is the tendency to ignore or discount information that later counterfeits the idea that they may be wrong. Every week you can read about some person who is exonerated after prosecutorial misconduct is revealed (such as hiding or ignoring exculpatory evidence or suborning perjury via bribes or intimidation). Very often the involved DA's office will fight the release to the bitter end, and they have plenty of sympathetic judges willing to give them every benefit of the doubt (or even beyond).

The Jody Arias trial I enjoyed following. Alot more recent than the OJ trial.

www.ignorancedenied.com...

And no I am not really a true crime obsessant. Comparitivly, both cases have alot of similarities. Except the the prosecution was successful in the Arias case. Worth reading and researching even if not a fan.

originally posted by: smirkley
The Jody Arias trial I enjoyed following. Alot more recent than the OJ trial.

www.ignorancedenied.com...

And no I am not really a true crime obsessant. Comparitivly, both cases have alot of similarities. Except the the prosecution was successful in the Arias case. Worth reading and researching even if not a fan.

I just read the wiki. My only recollections of that case were the media circus. It would seem the "missing" .25 makes it hard to claim self-defense. But you never know. I've learned the hard way not to trust media accounts or quick looks at evidence, but I guess I'd have found her guilty.

I can see some surface similarities to the Simpson case, but most fall away if you know that one well.

Trump's comment about the jurors was, I think, the typical sort of unfairness you hear.

No matter who you think did those murders, the jury was left with the following:

A prosecutor (Clark) who proudly announces her fealty to "the truth" followed by
--the lead detective (Vannater) who was clearly lying (even Ito upbraided him for his "reckless disregard for the truth)
--another detectivce (Furhman) who was caught by inference lying, and what's more was viciously attacked (by the prosecution!) as the most despicable human possible
--a witness, Denise Brown, who's testimony about how OJ hated everybody at the recital before the murderds was counterfeited by a third party video showing him smiling and hugging family members (also shows him grimacing when his young son runs up to him and he has to catch him spontaneously, showing the true state of his knees that day)
--the mysterious socks and gate blood, which the defense plausibly argued was planted (and was poorly rebutted by a biased FBI witness
--criminologists, Fung and Mazzola, who were clearly lying on the stand to cover up operational errors, some of them very irresponsible and certain to damage evidence
--the fact that those criminologists weren't even allowed onto the main crime scene for many hours, directly counter to procedure
--a DNA match calculation that was latter admitted under cross to be way off
--last but not least a timeline that seems impossible for Simpson or anyone else to execute, and a story that has him doing completely inexplicable things like running down dark paths to enter his house when he has multiple easier and equally unobtrusive options that are closer; and there beind no physical evidence that occurred anyway other than an oddly-placed glove.

The jurors also noted that Clark, Darden etc. often seemed flustered and annoyed and needlessly aggressive, something you would not expect from people who were confident in their case.

I think those jurors made the 100% correct call.

thank you Bronco for holding down the fort. The OJ son thing is a possibility to me but i doubt it..The way Nicoles neck was cut almost all the way thru took some major anger....But after doing this to Nicole and Ron, he had to be so tired, i mean adrenaline must be pumping like 108 octane thru his veins but he has a small cut on his finger and bleeds like you or I if we cut our knuckle trying to start the law mower sometime. Since OJ had to be pumped wouldn't MORE of OJs blood be found?? I am not like most.. i am not working from 6pm forward, im going 10:30 in reverse, there should so have been more blood, unless OJ didn't do it but was there at the time or very short time after..There is also, 6 freaking hours of reasoning from the same attorney that got Charles Mansen. Vince Bugaletti? He goes into every freaking detail and makes the most sense to me...The OJ son is convincing but since he is the son, i would believe blood, hair, etc would be the same.. OJ did it, i think, im just to figure out out.

Thank you so much for reading and continuing to post, please continue.. If you have watched the new vids of oj, you will be a little confused at some info..

Bud316

Update 17 secs later, here is the part 1:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. O.J. SIMPSON ("ABSOLUTELY 100% GUILTY") (PART 1) rewind to beginning please
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: bud316

Sure I'll dig into Bulgosi's video. I've read about 2/3rds of outrage already. Whenever I as a guy who thinks the jury did the right thing feel the need to find out just exactly how stupid I am, I know I can run to him and hear him tell me.

I think people grossly underestimate Jason's tendencies to "rage", he having physically attacked at least three people (not to mention multiple suicides) and being under medication to control them, medication which he abused with coc aine and booze.

OJ, on the other hand, was a guy who was caught on tape yelling at his ex to stop having blow jobs in front of his young kids, and got into some kind of drunken brawl with his drunken wife 5 1/2 years prior. There is no other documented incident of violence from him from 1989 on, and lots of reasons to doubt he would be violent against her, and in particular in the savage manner of these murders.

I live in LA, and it's kind of odd to think over the tangential encounters I've had with some of the figures in the case. About two years after the verdict AC walked out of some apartments on the cliffs overlooking Santa Monica beach while I was sitting on a nearby park bench, and not long after that I walked past Carl Douglas (defense attny) coming out a law office very near there. I have friend who is ex-LAPD who happened to be one of the responding officers for the 911 call Nicole made when OJ was yelling at her back in 1993. I have several mutal friends with prosecutor Chris Darden. I was on jury duty with LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti about 8 years ago, long after he'd retired in the wake of losing his re-election. It turned out he was a then doing photography, and had a book coming out about the struggle for water in Africa. I invited him to give a lectue at a place where I volunteer, the Center for Inquiry. About four years after that, we had another familiar speaker touring for his book about the existence of lack thereof of a Surpreme Being. His name?

Vincent Bulgosi (got to eatluch with him along with a dozen other people; nice guy if a bit full of himself).

All of this was before I read Bill Dear's book, so I missed a lot of chances to ask a few interesting questions...

Wasn't there a person who claims he sold OJ a bigazz knife, which was never accounted for? Early in the trial, iirc.

Also, a preservative was found in the drops pf OJ blood at the crime scene. This substance is deposited onto the vials used to draw blood, and assumed to have come from a sample that the lead detectives had access to, subsequently planted.

Nowadays, we know a bit more about how dirty cops are.

Plus, the testimony of Furman where he said he saw "them" in reference to a single bloody glove, each at a separate place, one at the crime scene and one on OJ's lawn or whatever. Furman testi-lied describing "them" when he meant to refer to a single glove. See, he's the one who tossed the 2nd glove onto OJ's property, or the crime scene....or vice-versa...I'm not sure.

Pretty easy to picture a guy like Furman planting evidence. That's law enforcement's idea of "justice".

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Also, a preservative was found in the drops pf OJ blood at the crime scene. This substance is deposited onto the vials used to draw blood, and assumed to have come from a sample that the lead detectives had access to, subsequently planted.

Nowadays, we know a bit more about how dirty cops are.

Plus, the testimony of Furman where he said he saw "them" in reference to a single bloody glove, each at a separate place, one at the crime scene and one on OJ's lawn or whatever. Furman testi-lied describing "them" when he meant to refer to a single glove. See, he's the one who tossed the 2nd glove onto OJ's property, or the crime scene....or vice-versa...I'm not sure.

Pretty easy to picture a guy like Furman planting evidence. That's law enforcement's idea of "justice".

Actually I remember this part preservatives were not found in the blood samples. The OJ defense team mislead the jury on this claiming the FBI forged the data then destroyed the details for testing it. At the time there was no test for this but the FBI developed one and the lab at quantico didn't keep the notes on testing development.However now ion chromatography is a proven method to detect to detect EDTA and is not unusual and the results can be trusted. At the time the defense argued this was not the case and being the first time it was used helped OJ in his case.

The socks and the gate did not contain EDTA.

Everyone with good points. I thought i heard that the edta is in everyones blood in certain amounts. About the knife, i believe there was a guy, at the sporting goods store that said he sold OJ a knife that fits the description of the one described in the murders..
Bud316

and i agree the jury was miss led on this edta thing, i mean its found in a lot of things. I just don't believe you can buy off a whole half of police force to all go against OJ with what they found doesn't make sense to do such a thing. People are human, they forget, they recall differently over time...Confusion is what won the OJ Not Guilty, Vince Bug. says the people were just DUMB, UNEDUCATED JURORS! LOL..The man did it, his footprints tell a story which ill link to ol dave wagners breakdown. Most normal humans, i would hope, if your ex wife was murdered and you had two kids together, no matter if she was a whore like OJ said she was, you would not want to kill yourself as well, what about those children you love so much? If you cared about your kids, you would have never ever threaten to take yourself out of their lives as well them being so young.. there is absolutely no way a normal, decent, human being would do this. He wanted to kill himself cause HE knew they were trying to arrest him and he had a chance being in prison for a long time.. they already took off the death penalty for this case, so he was looking at major time i would think..He also wrote a good bye note, he said he was going to blow his head of 3-4 times at Rob Kardash's house, that is on the new OJ Tapes.. he tried to shoot himself in the bronco according to Collins...If my ex wife died, what sense does it to kill myself too? I mean i loved ya but i dont love ya enough to follow ya into the unknown..OJ is a flat out liar. But did he kill her is the question.. Link below on analysis of footprints

main page lots of analysis :
www.davewagner.com...

OJ Footprints analysis
www.davewagner.com...

thanks everyone for joinging... 21 year old case and still a mystery. to me anywat
Bud

what about the racist cop that lied?

he was exposed.

originally posted by: bud316
Scenario: OJ Kills 2 people. I'm not being rude here. He stabs one 30 times and only cuts the knuckle of his left hand, that glove is found at the killings location with a slice in the left middle finger found on it. Then he slices Nicole's throat so fierce that the blade goes almost all the way through her neck. I'm sorry, but after cutting Nicole's neck, would blood not spray everywhere? I mean, at this point, whether Nicole is 1st or 2nd to die, there has to be a TON of blood spewing as poor Nicole's heart pumped. The alcove was small that this fight took place in,so if Ron was first to go, would he not be sprayed with Nicole's blood? Oj had to be absolutely drenched in both Nicole and poor Rons blood, in my opinion. I have to be 100% positive that if oj had 1,2 or 12 knifes at Goldman that Goldman is going to react, he is going to fight back. It bothers me that OJ was UNSCATHED almost completely except this small cut..

Or he changed out of and successfully destroyed most of the murder clothes.

a reply to: mbkennel

Well that would make sense. They found, gloves, hat, blood, what did he do with the clothes? I would assume we would find the clothes he wore that night. My assumption is that OJ was covered in blood. I did read someone place that they did find a dark sweat suit in the washing machine. So if he did wash them, what detergent gets out all these blood stains in one wash?? Must be some good detergent. If OJ had blood on his shoes, and we didn't hear Park say he looked like he went in shoeless, so wouldn't blood be tracked inside at least one foot print?? I also assume that the actual clothes and knife are together..He didnt bring is on the plane cause the knife never would have made it thru xray. Is it possible he gave this # to Kato to hide?
Bud316

The Bruno Magli shoes are pretty specific and evidence was produced, a photograph of OJ wearing these same shoes.

Those shoe prints really do limit the pool of suspects.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Yes, chiefly OJ or Jason.

Same with the gloves.

OJ's niece, Terry Baker (in her anti-OJ book "I'm Not Dancing Anymore") reports that the entire family scarfed up OJ's vast loads of excess clothing regularly, and Simpson himself stated he gave the stuff away to friends and so forth (i.e. the doorman at his hotel) when he shifted from NY to LA seasonally after concluding his sports anchor duties.

a reply to: bud316

The washed clothes turned out to be Arnelle's.

There was simply no way for him to wash clothes etc. in the stated time frame, or really any time frame that agrees with Jill Shively's powerful testimony of seeing OJ's car and "OJ" driving it and yelling at her to get out of the way.

I put "OJ" in quotes for two reasons: first, she initially thought the driver was Marcus Allen(!); and two, cross-race identification is the source of many errors in eyewitness testimony, so my suspicion is she made the second and perfectly logical mistake of thinking she say OJ when in fact it was the son, who resembled his dad enough under those circumstances.

A central problem with this mystery is, whoever was driving that car can't have been a person who parks, sneakily runs either on OJ's neighbor's property or down the side path after jumping a wall, plant or drop a glove for some stupid reason (even going back there makes no sense as the person had plenty of access in other places), runs back unheard by Kato even though the guest room walls were said to be fairly thin, leave no disturbance in his path, leave no blood even though there is blood *not heading to that back path" but leading straight to the foyer and into the limo's lights, change out of bloody clothes leaving no trace on walls, carpet, plumbling, shower tons of blood down to the speck, dress (it is assumed here he packed before the murders so we'll leave that out), then head back out and greet Parks.

And act not like a person who just murdered two people mere minutes before , engaging in unexpected combat with one totally unexpected person, but rather like the "same old OJ" .

Uh, that makes zero sense.