Is O.J. Innocent?
- Thread starter Dana Jean
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Yes.
Still can't believe the OJ would take a fall. Sure he would say something. Unless lawyers stopped him.
Awful scene for one person to do. ?
Still can't believe the OJ would take a fall. Sure he would say something. Unless lawyers stopped him.
Awful scene for one person to do. ?
I don't think he would take a fall, either. Even for his son. I think it was a lawyer play.
Next week is part 5 and 6. I'm seeing this through to the end.
I couldn't wait until this show aired! I was anxious to see what new evidence they had uncovered. Unfotunately, they've not yet shown any new evidence, only theories. Interesting, plausible theories I'll grant you. But only theories. And some of those haven't been all that plausible. The blood in the passenger area; Det. Lange explained that by saying that it had been deposited when the driver of the vehicle removed the interior light bulb, to avoid being seen when the light came on when the door was opened, and placed it under the passenger seat. The two new investigators accepted this explanation. But they never asked a very pertinent question of Det. Lange. Was there blood on the bulb when it was found under the passenger seat? If there was blood on the bulb, which would indeed explain the blood in the passenger area, that would not make sense, because that would mean that the bulb was removed after the murder. Why would the killer not have removed it before, instead of after? Wouldn't he have removed it before the murder, before he opened the door and exposed himself via the light, as opposed to removing it after, after he has already opened the door and gotten into the vehicle, exposing himself to the light? On the flip side of that unasked question, if there was no blood on the bulb, then the removal of the bulb does nothing to explain the blood in the passenger area. They have also paid a great deal of attention to the time card belonging to Jason from that night. It is strange that only that night is hand written in. But they interviewed a busboy who stated that Jason would have likely been gone by 9:30 that night, and that has now become their timeline for Jason's movements that night. They were convinced that it would have been very unusual that Jason would have still been there at 10:30, as his timecard says. According to the busboy, chefs were always gone by 10:00 or so. But, they seemed to ignore the other Sunday night entry on the card, which shows that Jason punched out on that Sunday at 10:20. I've seen a few more examples that seem to indicate that they often try to make certain things fit into their theory. But, Dr. Henry Lee is a genius, and his statement that there was preservative in the blood found on the socks recovered at O.J.'s house is very interesting indeed. I will continue to watch.
The watch supposedly wasn't stopped. The detective Lange in the original report notes that the watch was working.
So, which is the truth? Was it broken and stopped or broken and still working?
Yes, the preservative is another thing. Lange's statement about the bulb is a theory also. They don't know for sure either way, do they?
No they don't. Lange's statement that Dr. Lee testifies for money doesn't hold water either, because "experts" for the prosecution are also paid for their services. But, I'm really having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that, in a scene saturated with blood, no "unknown sources" were found. If there had been someone else there, it stands to reason that they would have samples from that person, even if they don't have a standard from that person to help identify the "unknown source." One thing that I know, without a doubt; evidence does not lie. A person's perception of what the evidence might mean could differ from person to person, but the evidence is simply what it is. And, as far as I know, there was only three contributors of blood at either of the two scenes. That tells me an awful lot. Doesn't mean the police didn't screw up, or even that they didn't try to make sure they had what they needed to convict O.J. But, if Jason, or anyone else, was there, where is the evidence?
...welcome Bransom, love your variety shows there in Missouri....
Ha!! Good stuff. I hadn't realized how close that is. Just threw a name out there. Good catch.
I'm waiting for the 'Hitler - A Man of Peace' docu-series.
There was blood drops, especially on Nicole's back, that were not tested. The keys that Ron used as a weapon were not tested. They washed her body before testing them. They returned the car keys to the owner of the car from a sealed evidence bag. The detective cut the bag open and she reached in and got the keys, that were caked with blood.
but yes, in such a brutal scene, you would have thought the killer would have had blood all over the place, especially given that Ron fought back.
Oh, they'll be lovin' us long time soon enough.
Oh, don't be underestimatin' the Orange Overlord.
To answer the question in the thread title: No.
I get that this case is fascinating and still "unsolved" but why is it suddenly everywhere? They just did a miniseries and ESPN had a 5 part series and now this. Along with JonBenet it seems 20+ year old cases are making a comeback(now in her case I do believe the son did it!)
I get that this case is fascinating and still "unsolved" but why is it suddenly everywhere? They just did a miniseries and ESPN had a 5 part series and now this. Along with JonBenet it seems 20+ year old cases are making a comeback(now in her case I do believe the son did it!)
Did OJ do it? Is Stephen King the Master of Horror?
Watching again, if anything - it's interesting to see new photos and interviews.
I am not liking these reporters? for some reason. Too tabloid sounding.
Kato.
I am not liking these reporters? for some reason. Too tabloid sounding.
Kato.
I agree 100% on the investigators that they are using. I loved Derek on Big Brother. And I don't know what kind of cop he is in real life, though I suspect that he's successful at what he does. But I don't think, just from watching him here, that he normally does homicide work. And, I know for a fact that undercover drug work is an entirely different animal than homicide investigations. I just feel like they used him to cash in on his popularity from Big Brother. He's left way too many questions unasked, questions that an experienced homicide investigator would have asked. Still love him but I ain't buying him as a bona fide homicide investigator. I'll say this for him though; he sure picked a Hell of a case for his first one! Kudos for that.