'OJ is innocent': Private investigator claims Simpson's SON Jason is guilty.

reply to post by silo13


Not that this has ANYTHING to do with the truth, but at the time of the trial, through all that mess, my mother insisted that Jason was the culprit. She had a very analytical mind, and had observed OJ thru the years. She was adamant that Jason had a temper worse than his father's and that he did it. She couldn't prove it, lol, but that was her opinion.

It was a long time ago, but if there is truth in what the investigator found, there is no expiration date on murder. BT

OJ had just before the murders done some training with some Navy Seals or other Special Forces people, for some movie he was doing or going to do, he had some specific training in hand to hand with knife so that part is bull.

Plus what about cut on hand?

Forgive me if this has been covered, I didnt read the whole thread as Im at work.
If there was evidence that his son did it, why didnt the defense bring any of it up?

reply to post by Deetermined

One report I read said that this particular dinner outing, after the recital, was the first time O.J. had not been invited to come along as part of the family. Does the video show them all sitting together at the recital?

I'll check.
I'm not sure we're taking about the same thing but from what I understand the 'whole family' was together for the recital and Jason was angry because Nichole went to the recital but chose not to go to the dinner HE had planned later for everyone. He definitely felt slighted.

peace

reply to post by googolplex

Do you have some links to this info? I'd really love to read up on it.
Thanks tons.
peace

reply to post by coop039

Forgive me if this has been covered, I didnt read the whole thread as Im at work.
If there was evidence that his son did it, why didnt the defense bring any of it up?

There's tons of evidence.
Problem?
The DA, Prosecuting attorney and police didn't even bother examining Jason as a possible suspect.

peace

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Deetermined

 

One report I read said that this particular dinner outing, after the recital, was the first time O.J. had not been invited to come along as part of the family. Does the video show them all sitting together at the recital?

I'll check.
I'm not sure we're taking about the same thing but from what I understand the 'whole family' was together for the recital and Jason was angry because Nichole went to the recital but chose not to go to the dinner HE had planned later for everyone. He definitely felt slighted.

peace

Prior to the murders, Nicole had put her house up for sale and wanted to evade taxes by claiming to live at O.J.'s house. O.J. had sent her a letter three days before the murders, refusing to go along with Nicole's plan. It is not clear if O.J.'s refusal had especially angered Nicole, but there was a dispute between the two that became apparent on the day of the murders.

In the late afternoon on that day O.J. and Nicole attended a dance recital for their daughter, Sydney Simpson, at the Paul Revere Middle School. Nicole's family also attended. Though O.J. had always been close to Nicole's family, Nicole made it clear that O.J. was not welcome to sit with the family and not invited to the dinner afterwards. Apparently peeved, O.J. dragged a chair to a far corner of the auditorium and watched the recital from there. Nevertheless, a video taken immediately after the recital shows O.J. in a cheery mood. He was warm to Nicole's parents and enthusiastically embraced his children.

www.victimsofthestate.org...

Funny that nobody mentioned that the kid was a coc aine dealer, and nicole and her friend were users and owed him money. Oh well. I've always thought that the kid did it and OJ was taking the rap for him. never bought the idea that he did the crime. He had no motive ,but the kid did.

oj did have some motive:He had monthly alimony payments of $9,000 and child support of $15,000.

Newsweek Feb17, 1997

reply to post by lonegurkha


I've never heard this before. Did that stuff come out in the trial? I don't remember it.

reply to post by Dance4Life

I've never heard this before. Did that stuff come out in the trial? I don't remember it.

No, none of this came out at the trial (or very little if any).
If you can watch the videos on page one they're really a good listen. Thought provoking in the least.
peace

reply to post by Dance4Life


It was in the media before the trial.

reply to post by Deetermined

In the late afternoon on that day O.J. and Nicole attended a dance recital for their daughter, Sydney Simpson, at the Paul Revere Middle School. Nicole's family also attended. Though O.J. had always been close to Nicole's family, Nicole made it clear that O.J. was not welcome to sit with the family and not invited to the dinner afterwards

I have to go back and watch the video because what you're presenting is far at odds with the information presented in the works of Mr. Dear.

Dear insists it was Nichole who chose not to show up at the dinner (sighting tired children, cost of food and the wish to go to another restaurant) while the rest of the family was surely going to be there for Jason's debut as full chef for the whole meal. Mr Dear insinuated this provoked Jason's jealousy as 'all could congregate for the sister but not for him' and the protagonist to insight his rage.

Mr. Dear mentions nothing about OJ not being invited in fact he insinuates he was. That might be a negative implication for his (Mr. Dear's) stretching the truth and credibility, or your source, I'm not sure yet.

Thanks tons!

Originally posted by silo13
The story also includes pictures of Jason wearing a knit cap remarkably if not the same hat retrieved and said to have been worn by OJ. The knife.

Well you know the old saying, "Like father, like son...."

OJ definitely has issues. It's not surprising his son has issues. Whether or not the son did it, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. Circumstantial evidence is a long way from the DA being able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt," coupled with no witnesses, etc. this PI's claims are speculation at best.

Originally posted by lonegurkha
Funny that nobody mentioned that the kid was a coc aine dealer, and nicole and her friend were users and owed him money. Oh well. I've always thought that the kid did it and OJ was taking the rap for him. never bought the idea that he did the crime. He had no motive ,but the kid did.

The bottom line is, Nicole didn't have any drugs in her system when she died. They only suggested that she probably had two glasses of wine with dinner.

I don't recall seeing any information that Jason was a drug dealer either. Did I miss something?

reply to post by silo13


Here's Kato's testimony describing what happened at Sydney's recital.

MS. CLARK: AND WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT?
MR. KAELIN: ABOUT THE GAME, ABOUT WHO WON THE GAME, THE RECITAL, HOW SYDNEY WAS AT THE RECITAL.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU ABOUT SYDNEY AT THE RECITAL?
MR. KAELIN: HE SAID SYDNEY WAS GREAT AT THE RECITAL. *******
MS. CLARK: WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT TELL YOU TRANSPIRED, IF ANYTHING, WITH REGARD TO HIMSELF, NICOLE AND SYDNEY?
MR. KAELIN: OKAY. THAT O.J. WANTED TO SPEND TIME WITH SYDNEY AND THAT NICOLE WASN'T GOING TO GIVE HIM THE TIME TO HAVE WITH HIS DAUGHTER, TALK TO HER AT THE RECITAL, SO THEY WENT OFF. ******
MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT NICOLE HERSELF AT THE RECITAL? MR. KAELIN: ABOUT HER -- HER OUTFIT THAT SHE HAD ON.
MS. CLARK: WHAT REMARK DID HE MAKE -- WHAT, IF ANY, REMARK DID HE MAKE ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS WEARING THAT NIGHT?
MR. KAELIN: THAT IT WAS A TIGHT OUTFIT.

law2.umkc.edu...

Really? Why would O.J. comment about Nicole's outfit being too tight if he wasn't still obsessed with her?

Men like O.J. consider their women to be personal property no matter how long they've been broken up or what other women they date.

Also, if you read Kato's entire statement, you'll see that Kato was planning on moving in with Nicole before O.J. told him that he could stay in his pool house for free. O.J. told Kato that moving in with Nicole would not be right.

You only have to know someone who's been married to someone like O.J. to see all of the signs and the regular patterns of behavior that these types of men show. They are all very similar in nature. They are control freaks who view women as objects and property instead of partners. This is why they try to beat them into submission and control every aspect of their lives.

reply to post by Deetermined


I saw it, and when I saw it, it made sense that he was the killer. This report was buried very quickly after it was made. I met OJ many times when he played for Buffalo as I was dating a girl that was babysitting for him. I used to pick her up at the apartment where he lived with his first wife. Never once did I ever witness anything that would indicate that he was in any way violent. I went to pickup the girl I was dating one night and when admitted his wife at the time was throwing stuff around the apartment and screaming at him about something that had happened while they were out that night. He was trying to calm her down. But wasn't violent.

What about the fact that the blood from the victims was in OJs car .. on the carpet on the floor?
Looks like he tracked it into his car after he killed them. That's pretty damning.

Originally posted by coloradokat
Very simply to the people who think that O.J. is guilty - the glove didn't fit!

Because it had shrunk from being soaked in blood ..
.... and OJ didn't take his arthritis meds so his knuckles swelled.

But whatever .. he got away with it. Nothing we can do about it ...

I found the old link people were referring to :

OJ Simpson: The Case Reviewed the thread was started in 2009 the poster TheMythLives

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the person who started this thread did others as well. Marylin Monroe,Robert Kennedy, Natalie Holloway, John Kennedy, the Lockerbie plane explosion plane crash, Jack the ripper, etc

reply to post by FlyersFan

What about the fact that the blood from the victims was in OJs car .. on the carpet on the floor?
Looks like he tracked it into his car after he killed them. That's pretty damning.

Blood trace on it's own doesn't indicate guilt - only that he was present at the crime scene.

Me? I was SURE he (OJ) was guilty. I mean I was really SURE. Until. Until listening to the 'new' facts that were never even questioned by the authorities over a boy who was never questioned who had every reason and opportunity to kill. A boy who was infested with rage, guilt (over his responsibility in the part of his sisters drowning), infested with jealous, and more rage - and just happened to be OFF his medication - but on probation for attacking his employer with a knife.

Am I still speculative after the info? You bet. That being said it's completely believable OJ got a call from his son, OR, in an irony that only life can replicate, in a terrific serendipity, regardless why, OJ was there because..because...because - directly after the killing.

Vision this... He arrived. He was horrified. He checked Nichole for life and as the crime scene was so unbelievably gruesome he tracked her/his blood with him when he 'escaped'. From fear? From guilt?

The information truly rises so many questions.

peace