"Is O.J. Innocent? The Missing Evidence" (1 Viewer)

Saintaholic

<><><><><><><><><><><>
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2000
Messages
17,610
Reaction score
29,642
Offline
Anyone else watching this mess of a mini-series on Discovery I.D.?

For those that aren't watching, it is basically a P.I. who thinks he has discovered the "true murderer," O.J.'s son. The entire program is he and 2 other P.I.'s looking deeper into the "evidence" of this.
 

Saint Jack

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
10,791
Reaction score
18,535
Location
Marrero
Offline
Anyone else watching this mess of a mini-series on Discovery I.D.?

For those that aren't watching, it is basically a P.I. who thinks he has discovered the "true murderer," O.J.'s son. The entire program is he and 2 other P.I.'s looking deeper into the "evidence" of this.
Wasn't that claim debunked in the late 90s?
 

Stilldat318

Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
128
Reaction score
11
Offline
they need to leave that ******* man alone they already set him up hell

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 

FullMonte

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
5,786
Reaction score
3,752
Age
53
Location
Shreveport/Bossier City
Offline
Wasn't that claim debunked in the late 90s?
I don't know that it was "debunked." William Dear wrote a book called "OJ Is Innocent and I Can Prove It," that lays out a pretty solid case for at least looking into OJ's son. A while later, a guy wrote an article titled "William Dear is Full of It and I Can Prove It," that tries to poke holes in Dear's claims.

The article does raise some questions, but it is a long way from actually proving Dear's theories wrong.

At the end of the day, Dear's theory that Jason did it does seem to make a lot of sense, but it also does leave some of the actual evidence in question...mainly the amount of time OJ had to receive a phone call from Jason, get dressed, run over to Nicole's house, and get back home.

For those who aren't aware, here are the main points of Dear's theory about Jason:

--Jason had been diagnosed with a mental disorder that caused outbursts of rage and seizures. He had not been taking his medication for a while before the murders
--Nicole was supposed to go to Jason's restaurant (he was a cook/chef there) that night after her daughter's dance recital, but cancelled at the last minute
--Jason had attacked/threatened to attack people with knives in the past
--The murders happened sometime between 9:30-10:00 pm. Jason was supposed to be at work at that time. However, his timecard showing he was at work was handwritten, even though the automated timeclock was working that night. And, his girlfriend said she picked him up between 9:00-9:30 and dropped him off at home, so he was alone.
--The black knit cap that was found at the scene contained animal hair (probably dog) and hair fibers that did not match OJ. OJ did not own a dog, but Jason did.
--Fingerprints were found at the scene that did not match OJ's. They were not compared to Jason's prints.
--The killer should have been covered in blood, but only a minimal amount of blood was found in OJ's car/home.
--Ron Goldman's hand showed significant bruising/swelling indicating he fought back. OJ had no bruising or other indications that he had been in any kind of fight.
--Blood and skin were found under Nicole's fingerprints that did not match OJ.
--OJ hired a well known criminal attorney to represent Jason the day after the murders.

(NOTE: I am not stating that any of this is factual or correct. I am only repeating the claims made by Dear in his book)
 
OP
Saintaholic

Saintaholic

<><><><><><><><><><><>
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2000
Messages
17,610
Reaction score
29,642
Offline
After watching the final two episodes, I think it is very plausible that Jason was the "Charlie" from O.J.'s book, especially since we now know Jason had some sort of affinity for knives and O.J. says he got the knife from "Charlie," who had been watching Nicole for him and knew intimate details about what she had been up to.
 

LAhotsauce

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
3,305
Reaction score
5,164
Offline
So what about the drug dealing restaurant Nicole and Ron Goldman used to score from. Along with Michael Nigg who was a drug dealer there and was eventually killed in an apparent robbery.
 

Hedon James

the agitant f/k/a Jekylz Hyde
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
2,219
Reaction score
2,661
Location
Garden of Hedon...wherever I am, there I are...
Offline
I watched it. Interesting as heck, and while I can acknowledge Dear's theory about how Jason "could have" done it, I just can't make the leap to the conclusion that he did. There is a TON of evidence that can't be explained any way other than "there was more than 1 person" at the scene...maybe 2 killers, maybe 1 killer and an observer, maybe an unwitting witness who heard a ruckus and came running to see what was happening, or saw the aftermath and thought "my god, OJ, what have you done?!"

I absolutely buy the theory there were 2 people there...OJ and someone unknown...or perhaps even OJ and Jason. But to suggest it was Jason and that OJ covered for him is such a ridiculously preposterous conclusion, in my mind, that it's hard to take anything else seriously that Dear suggests.

There isn't a SINGLE piece of evidence that definitively ties Jason to the scene, let alone suggests he participated. It's all circumstantial speculation. Might as well theorize how I did it, and then prove that theory can't be ruled out. On the other hand, there is so much evidence against OJ that it is unfathomable he was found innocent. This was not a well-thought-out, nor well-planned, nor well-executed crime. Woulda, coulda, shoulda gotten caught, IMO. I can only speculate it was the perfect storm for OJ. LA race riots were still recent, raw memories, and citizens were suspicious of police from that. Couple that with the apparently overwhelming evidence against OJ (IMO) and I do believe the police zeroed in on him so quickly (and rightfully so) that they failed to consider whether there were others. It's almost like they didn't care if there were others...we got OJ, he did this...case closed. It gave the appearance (and perhaps rightfully so) that the investigation was over once OJ was implicated, when in fact, they should've continued to run it down and figure out if it was ONLY OJ. Made it look like a vendetta against OJ, which opened the door for the Cochran defense.

Sometimes the APPEARANCE of an impropriety IS the impropriety. And that was OJs get out of jail free card. JMO...
 

FullMonte

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
5,786
Reaction score
3,752
Age
53
Location
Shreveport/Bossier City
Offline
On the other hand, there is so much evidence against OJ that it is unfathomable he was found innocent.

Unfortunately, along with the evidence against OJ there was also the evidence that pointed towards someone else (such as the fingerprints that weren't OJ's, and the skin/blood evidence under Nicole's fingernails that wasn't OJ's) that would raise reasonable doubt.
 

Hedon James

the agitant f/k/a Jekylz Hyde
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
2,219
Reaction score
2,661
Location
Garden of Hedon...wherever I am, there I are...
Offline
Unfortunately, along with the evidence against OJ there was also the evidence that pointed towards someone else (such as the fingerprints that weren't OJ's, and the skin/blood evidence under Nicole's fingernails that wasn't OJ's) that would raise reasonable doubt.
Also True. You bring up a good point. Perhaps OJ didn't commit murder. But there is no doubt in my mind OJ was there. If he isn't the murderer, he's an accessory. But there's too much evidence to deny he was involved. Unfortunately, I don't believe we'll EVER know who the 2nd party was. If OJ had been found guilty, I'll bet he would've rolled on the accomplice (unless it was indeed Jason). But since he was found innocent, all bets are off.

Because of double jeopardy, he could call a national press conference, confess to the murders and provide a detailed account of events that would explain everything, and NOTHING would happen to him. But we'll never know...
 

Madmarsha

I default to sarcasm
VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
32,304
Reaction score
44,568
Offline
I watched and I feel icky all over again. Everything about that event was FUBAR'd from the get go. Horrible crime scene work, horrible police work. None of that trial was about the victims and Ito completely lost control of his own courtroom. I dunno if OJ really did it; but either way, his life as he knew it was ruined that night. And people using 2 murders as a cause to further their agenda (and there was a lot of that going on from everyone except the Goldmans and most of the Brown family) makes me ill. I find this and that Jon Benet thing where they accuse her brother as highly exploitative... and yet I am guilty of watching both.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom