O.J. Simpson: Sacking the Truth?

Jim, your comments in the "Reclaiming Baloney" thread got me thinking about another issue connected to Vincent Bugliosi. You very sharply put your finger on an aspect of his presentation that is most important, i.e., that he is writing as a prosecutor re-arguing a case, not as a historian trying to get at the truth.

He has done the same thing before. He is retired now and must be like one of those old generals who gets the toy soldiers out on a table in his den and re-fights old battles from the Civil War or the Napoleonic era.

The case I'm referring to is the O.J. Simpson murder case. Bugliosi, in his book "Outrageous" has done a similar prosecutorial rehash of the evidence, pointing out all the mistakes the original prosecution team made.

At the time the murder happened, I did not believe Simpson did it. I still had the mental image of him as a young player in the Rose Bowl, so gangly and coltish, running away from everybody and then going on to so much success in life in sports and in the media.

It was a hard sell for me to come around to the notion that O.J. had murdered his wife. However, I finally did accept it.

There are numerous conspiracy theories concerning this case. Here is a link to a page that runs through a number of them:

www.policenet.com...

Jim, what is your take on the Simpson case?

The O.J. Simpson murder case has not been in the news for a long time, although O.J. himself has never been out of the news for very long at a stretch. I had accepted the verdict and moved on, but after starting this thread, I got back on the web and started to do a little digging. What I found out was that, unlike O.J. himself, there are people out there who never stopped digging.

The following two videos are very interesting. The visuals are poor in the first one but the voice-over is compelling despite the fact that it is not being read by a professional narrator. The second video is a very polished trailer, making points similar to those made in the first. I have to say that after seeing the videos, the O.J. story makes a lot more psychological sense to me. Strangely, it makes the court verdicts seem almost karmically perfect.

Great thread and Im going to check out the link you provided and watch the video.

Last year in my Criminal Law class we studied the OJ Simpson trial and I had to write a very long paper on it. The book we read and studied was:
Trial of the Century : People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, Schmalleger, Frank M.

I just finished reading "if I DID IT"....mainly because of my study on it in class. I wanted to see what the great OJ had to say.

Talk about creepy. He started out talking about his relationship with Nicole and placed majority of blame for all their problems on her. Some of the things he would say would make my eyes bug out At the point where he talked about the night of the murder....it was VERY confusing going from his story about the relationship to his "hypothetical" tale of "if he did it".

The line between both tales was nearly invisible....except for him saying "now remember, this part is hypothetical...." If you missed that line....you wouldn't have seen where he separated HIS reality from his hypothetical tale.

After *my* study of both books, I dont doubt at ALL that he did it. And I truly believe deep down in my gut, that "if I did it" was his true confession.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by greeneyedleo]

I just finished watching the E channel television special O.J., Nicole and Ron: Countdown to Murder, and I agree with you about the creepy factor. Simpson on camera as himself is never convincing.

I think he is a nervous and insecure man. Even if he told me what time it is, his manner would make me want to double check it. His insecurity is contagious. His lawyers were smart to keep him off the stand. He could tell you the truth in such a way that you would come away convinced that he was concealing something.

I'll be interested to read your reaction to the videos. They are more interesting than the linked conspiracy webpage, although that is worth a read, if only to become aware of a lot of oddities about the case and strange connections. What most people don't know is that there is a guy in the Simpson family who makes O.J. look like a model of sober stability, and this guy did not like Nicole. Watch the videos.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by ipsedixit]

The first video linked to above is still available and can be viewed on YouTube at:

www.youtube.com...

I'm assuming that some glitch is the cause of the "This video is no longer available." message.

Here is another attempt to embed the video.

yvid]CUg_wzuWAJw[/yvid

I removed the external brackets to this video embed because after embedding the video for a second time (successfully). I tried the original link again and the connection went through to play the video. So the first link seems to be working.

This was probably only a glitch, but I'm leaving the record of the process in the thread anyway.



[edit on 19-1-2008 by ipsedixit]

Howdy to all you O.J. aficionados,

Having served as a crime reporter as well as a court reporter for years, I am here to tell you that O.J. Simpson was guilty as hell. If it had been you or me in the docket, they would still be piping air down to the hole in which we would have been imprisoned.

Here's what has been overlooked because it is not politically correct to speak about it: The black communities in Los Angeles looked up to O.J. as a hero, even an icon. Community leaders, as well as the informants on the street, made it clear that if O.J. was convicted, there would be major riots in the city, an eventuality that struck fear in hearts of both city and national leaders. Deals were made and the prosecution (which even I could have better conducted) lobbed softballs -- critical points were not pursued, the evidence came into question and the entire trial was turned into a circus.

Considering the half-baked prosecution case, I think most any fair minded individual would have agreed with the "not guilty" verdict -- reasonable doubt and all that.

The city stayed calm, the participants got their 15-minutes of fame, the lawyers and the media made big money and everyone was satisfied except Lady Justice, who had to pull the blindfold a little lower over her eyes.

Jim Marrs

Originally posted by Jim Marrs
Deals were made and the prosecution (which even I could have better conducted) lobbed softballs -- critical points were not pursued, the evidence came into question and the entire trial was turned into a circus.

Considering the half-baked prosecution case, I think most any fair minded individual would have agreed with the "not guilty" verdict -- reasonable doubt and all that.

The scenario that you are talking about could very well have played out just as you said. It would fit the well established fact (in CT circles) that the inverted ethical and moral values of American officialdom just never bottom out.

In spite of accepting that, there are solid reasons to question the popular perception, as William C. Dear does in the second linked video. Here are two of them:

1. The forensic lab people were not able to match the blood at the crime scene to O.J. Simpson with 100% certainly. That is a staggering blow to the prosecution, especially when another Simpson family member enters the picture as a suspect. The sort of match they were able to make is more along the lines that one would expect from a blood relative of O.J.s.
It would be very interesting if they were to try to match his blood with the crime scene blood.

2. Ronald Coleman was stabbed 19 times. It took ex-NFL star running back, O.J. Simpson, 19 cuts to take care of a young, in good shape, pretty boy. I know O.J. was not Mean Joe Green, but anyone as used to body contact rough housing as an NFL football player, is going to be more efficient and quick at subduing and dispatching Joe Public.

William Dear and several other experts have other serious doubts about the Simpson case. I think they are onto something.

It occurred to me that there might be a conspiracy in place in regard to not pursuing this case. It is still an open case. In light of the blood evidence quandary, and Jason Simpson's "issues" it would seem logical for the authorities to attempt to obtain a DNA sample from him for comparison purposes. As far as I know it is not happening. Why could that be?

Here's a suggestion. Suppose the LAPD pursued a case against "the overlooked suspect" and got enough evidence to convict him. Suppose he were put on trial and convicted. Imagine the field day O.J.s attornies would have suing various Hollywood luminaries who have committed themselves on film calling him a murderer. And not only suing them but also the broadcasters who spread the now demonstrable libels.

Suddenly we are back in conspiracy territory that most CTers recognize. Big media getting away with media murder. Something to ponder.


[edit on 6-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

i've been reading this thread and wondering if i shoul reply at all...but, what the hell...

i have a friend, and she has "prescient" dreams...she has, on more than a few occasions, correctly foretold future events, such as 9/11, etc etc.

anyway, the evening of the murders, before it was announced via media outlets, she said she had a dream that 2 men actually killed nicole and ron...neither of them OJ....although she says he was present. she said she woke up, saying to herself "what a weird dream", then she watched the news the next day.

i know it sounds way out there, but i do believe in the power of dreams to fortell future events, i believe that my friend does not lie about her abilities, and i also believe that the manner in which those two were murdered would be almost impossible for one man with arthritis and bad knees to commit by himself.

reply to post by el cid

Thanks for the response. Personally, for reasons that I won't go into, I put a lot of store in the sort of dreams that your friend has. There are a lot of little understood aspects of mental activity that people in our era are only beginning to appreciate.

Going back to the very beginning when this crime was revealed to the public, my first thought was that someone was trying to frame O.J. Simpson for this crime. The bloody glove found on his property just seemed too obvious. When you look at this evidence and O.J.'s movements, etc., there is an overall air of frantic improvisation about them. Not planning.

I haven't seen Mr. Dear's video except for the trailer, but from that I gather that he believes that O.J. might have been pressed into service at the last moment to help get his son out of a jam. If that is the case then a lot of the careless, bizarre movements attributed to O.J. start to make sense.

I was sold on Simpson's guilt until I read a little about the strange goings on at the Mezzaluna just prior to the murders and an interesting individual named Joey Ippolito.

Here is a thread on the subject:

The "Juice" & Joey Ippolito

I have no doubt that Simpson was implicated in the crime through his drug dealing connections. I also think he knows who committed the double murder, but I don't think he did the actual stabbing.

OJ simpson is a Sack

sorry had a computer problem
to finish he constantly distorts the truth and blurd the lines between right wrong just and unjust I hope that he is stopped in his tracks this time..




Respectfully
GEO

[edit on 2/8/2008 by geocom]

reply to post by Beelzebubba

I followed some of your links and read up on Joey Ippolito's connections. This is a world that I can't really comprehend. Thinking logically in this context is not always productive.

If you think logically, rationally, reasonably, you generally come up with ways of doing things that criminals don't employ. If you apply common sense to try to determine what a criminal did in any given case, you could be on the wrong track because common sense is not highly placed among a criminal's guiding principles.

When you add drugs, particularly coc aine, into the mix, common sense, as a guiding principle and therefore a tool of investigation, goes out the window.

Where all this leads is to say that, if I were Joey Ippolito, facing business competition from Nicole Simpson, or O.J. or Faye Reznick, I would not choose to murder them (Nicole and Faye), butcher shop style, or any style. I can't really see the value in putting O.J.'s butt in a sling. I think I could make my point in other ways. But then I value "common sense". So you could very well be on to something in regard to these murders. Faye Reznick certainly was very afraid of something.

The mind control thing and the idea that the mob would take the trouble to frame O.J. for murder seems too elaborate for me. I have to admit though, at first I thought he was being framed.

I still would like to see Jason Simpson's blood tested against the crime scene blood.



[edit on 8-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 8-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

Howdy el cid,

While not debating the reality of dreams, I can certainly buy into the idea that others killed Nicole et al at O.J.'s bidding. After all, he hired thugs to try and retake his memoriabilia which shows he is not above hiring others to do his dirty work.

Of course, if murder by hire is indeed the truth of the event, it still makes him guilty.

Jim Marrs