Can Anyone Prove Jason DIDN'T Do It?
Ted Bell
dead certain for the past seven years that OJ was the killer. But the William
Dear book threw all of that out the window. After reading that, I agree with
him that the best suspect is Jason Simpson.
I know there are people here who pin the murders on OJ, on Fuhrman, even on
Kato (!)... can anyone tell me why I SHOULDN'T believe Jason did it? No flames,
please... let's just talk about the facts of the case.
Robert H. Risch
wrote:
I haven't seen the book but saw the BBC program. First of all, how
does Dear handle the physical evidence, including DNA, that links OJ
but not Jason to the crime?
RHR
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
Ted Bell.
It wasn't Jason's blood that was found at the murder scene, and in Simpson's Bronco
mixed with the victims blood, and at Rockingham, and on the killer's right hand
glove, and on Simpson's socks.
It wasn't Jason's hair found in the killer's hat.
It wasn't Jason's socks that had a blue black cotton fiber on them.
It wasn't Jason who was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that evening..
It wasn't Jason's Bruno Magli shoes that left the bloody shoe prints.
It wasn't Jason's bathroom that an empty Swiss Army Knife box was seen and
photographed.
It wasn't Jason who was seen by Jill Shively.
It wasn't Jason who was seen by Allan Park.
It wasn't Jason who was caught in many lies about what he did that evening.
It wasn't Jason who continually changed his story to fit the facts as they became
known.
bobaugust
John Griffin
"Ted Bell" <tedsofb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com...
I can't imagine any reason why you shouldn't believe it, unless you would
be bothered by having normal people think you're a moron.
The fact that 100.00% of the evidence points another direction is a
pretty good reason why no one except you should believe it, in case
you care.
Ted Bell
> I haven't seen the book but saw the BBC program. First of all, how
> does Dear handle the physical evidence, including DNA, that links OJ
> but not Jason to the crime?
The physical evidence suggests that OJ was at the crime scene, and Dear
agrees. His thesis is that an enraged Jason did the killings and fled,
then called OJ, who rushed over to the scene to investigate. According to
the theory, OJ picked up a few traces of blood at the scene (and investigators
never did find more than a few tiny drops in the Bronco or at Rockingham), and
managed to lose a glove in the dark.
Not all of the physical evidence points to OJ, either. Police discovered
one bloody shoeprint at the scene that did *not* match those left by the Bruno
Maglis.
Robert H. Risch
wrote:
> The physical evidence suggests that OJ was at the crime scene, and Dear
>agrees. His thesis is that an enraged Jason did the killings and fled,
>then called OJ, who rushed over to the scene to investigate. According to
>the theory, OJ picked up a few traces of blood at the scene (and investigators
>never did find more than a few tiny drops in the Bronco or at Rockingham), and
>managed to lose a glove in the dark.
>
Does Dear say why OJ would be wearing gloves in June? How did OJ cut
himself?
> Not all of the physical evidence points to OJ, either. Police discovered
>one bloody shoeprint at the scene that did *not* match those left by the Bruno
>Maglis.
A new one on me. And that belonged to Jason? Can you invite Dear to
discuss his theories in this NG?
RHR
Ted Bell
> It wasn't Jason's blood that was found at the murder scene, and in Simpson's Bronco
> mixed with the victims blood, and at Rockingham, and on the killer's right hand
> glove, and on Simpson's socks.
>
> It wasn't Jason's hair found in the killer's hat.
The blood and hair analysis didn't prove that the blood drops and hairs were
indisputably OJ's. The analysis showed that OJ's DNA was an extremely close match
for those found in the samples. But, being OJ's son, Jason's DNA would naturally
be very close to OJ's. Jason could not be ruled out because the police never took
blood or hair samples from him. In fact, the authorities didn't even interview him.
Since Jason was always welcome at Rockingham, and had the security code for the
security system besides, Jason could easily have borrowed his father's hat, shoes,
and other articles of clothing whenever he wanted. OJ bought him a car... why
wouldn't he lend his kid something to wear once in a while?
> It wasn't Jason's socks that had a blue black cotton fiber on them.
>
> It wasn't Jason who was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that evening..
>
> It wasn't Jason's Bruno Magli shoes that left the bloody shoe prints.
Dear doesn't argue that OJ wasn't at the crime scene. He argues that he *was*
at the scene, after Jason had fled. And as I pointed out in another post,
police found a blood shoeprint that didn't match those created by the Bruno
Maglis.
> It wasn't Jason's bathroom that an empty Swiss Army Knife box was seen and
> photographed.
The knife wounds found in the victims didn't match the size and shape of the
Swiss Army Knife. However, there's a knife in the standard chef's kit that *does*
match the size, shape and width of the wounds. And Jason's girlfriend confirmed that
Jason did have his chef's kit with him that night, after he left Jackson's Restaurant
where he'd been working.
> It wasn't Jason who was seen by Jill Shively.
>
> It wasn't Jason who was seen by Allan Park.
>
> It wasn't Jason who was caught in many lies about what he did that evening.
>
> It wasn't Jason who continually changed his story to fit the facts as they became
> known.
Again, Dear agrees that the evidence puts OJ at the crime scene that night. His
argument is simply that OJ arrived just *after* the killings. And, rather than see his
troubled son land on death row, OJ protected him and let a jury decide whether or
not OJ himself had done the killings. It was a tremendous gamble, but the jury
found him not guilty.
Dear says OJ *is* guilty, as an accessory after the fact, but not of murder.
Robert H. Risch
wrote:
>The analysis showed that OJ's DNA was an extremely close match
>for those found in the samples. But, being OJ's son, Jason's DNA would naturally
>be very close to OJ's.
Did Dear say that or is that from you? It is hard for me to believe
that someone who claims to be an experienced detective could be so
ignorant of DNA analysis that he would say something that stupid.
RHR
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
> Bob August <boba...@lvcm.com> wrote...
>
> > It wasn't Jason's blood that was found at the murder scene, and in Simpson's Bronco
> > mixed with the victims blood, and at Rockingham, and on the killer's right hand
> > glove, and on Simpson's socks.
> >
> > It wasn't Jason's hair found in the killer's hat.
>
> The blood and hair analysis didn't prove that the blood drops and hairs were
> indisputably OJ's. The analysis showed that OJ's DNA was an extremely close match
> for those found in the samples. But, being OJ's son, Jason's DNA would naturally
> be very close to OJ's. Jason could not be ruled out because the police never took
> blood or hair samples from him. In fact, the authorities didn't even interview him.
Ted Bell,
No, that is not true. It was Simpson's blood that was identified. There was no doubt about
that. And the fact that Jason was his son does not mean that his DNA would be close to the
Simpson's. You completely ignore the facts. All of the blood found only came from three
people, the two victims and the killer.
>
>
> Since Jason was always welcome at Rockingham, and had the security code for the
> security system besides, Jason could easily have borrowed his father's hat, shoes,
> and other articles of clothing whenever he wanted. OJ bought him a car... why
> wouldn't he lend his kid something to wear once in a while?
There is absolutely no evidence that Simpson loaned Jason anything. Especially the night
of the murders. It was Simpson who was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that night. It
was the blue black cotton fibers found on Goldman's shirt, the killer's right hand glove,
and Simpson's socks. This crime had nothing to do with Jason.
>
>
> > It wasn't Jason's socks that had a blue black cotton fiber on them.
> >
> > It wasn't Jason who was wearing a dark colored sweat suit that evening..
> >
> > It wasn't Jason's Bruno Magli shoes that left the bloody shoe prints.
>
> Dear doesn't argue that OJ wasn't at the crime scene. He argues that he *was*
> at the scene, after Jason had fled. And as I pointed out in another post,
> police found a blood shoeprint that didn't match those created by the Bruno
> Maglis.
Absolutely not true. I have no idea where you got that misinformation. But it is not true.
>
>
> > It wasn't Jason's bathroom that an empty Swiss Army Knife box was seen and
> > photographed.
>
> The knife wounds found in the victims didn't match the size and shape of the
> Swiss Army Knife. However, there's a knife in the standard chef's kit that *does*
> match the size, shape and width of the wounds. And Jason's girlfriend confirmed that
> Jason did have his chef's kit with him that night, after he left Jackson's Restaurant
> where he'd been working.
>
You are wrong again. Fuhrman later investigated Swiss Army knives. It was found that all
of the wounds on both victims was consistent with 3 1/2" lock blade Swiss Army knife. The
same size knife that would fit in the empty Swiss Army box found on the edge of Simpson's
bathtub in his master bath the day after the murders.
>
> > It wasn't Jason who was seen by Jill Shively.
> >
> > It wasn't Jason who was seen by Allan Park.
> >
> > It wasn't Jason who was caught in many lies about what he did that evening.
> >
> > It wasn't Jason who continually changed his story to fit the facts as they became
> > known.
>
> Again, Dear agrees that the evidence puts OJ at the crime scene that night. His
> argument is simply that OJ arrived just *after* the killings. And, rather than see his
> troubled son land on death row, OJ protected him and let a jury decide whether or
> not OJ himself had done the killings. It was a tremendous gamble, but the jury
> found him not guilty.
Good fantasy but it has nothing to do with the reality of the facts and evidence. It was
Simpson who had the cut on his finger of his left hand. It was the killer's left hand
glove that was found at South Bundy. The killer's right hand glove, that had Simpson's
blood on it, was found on Simpson's property. The murders took place after 10:30 that
evening. Simpson Bronco was seen leaving the crime scene about ten to fifteen minutes
later. Simpson's blood and both victims blood were found in Simpson's Bronco.
>
>
> Dear says OJ *is* guilty, as an accessory after the fact, but not of murder.
There is not one shred of relevant physical evidence that points to anyone but Simpson as
the killer. All of the blood at the murder scene, in the Bronco, and at Simpson's house
came from only three people. The two victims and the killer.
There was no other unidentified shoe print found at South Bundy. All of the shoe prints
found were made from size 12 Bruno Magli shoes with a Silga sole. You have incorrect
information.
bobaugust
John Griffin
"An Metet" <anm...@freedom.gmsociety.org> wrote in message
news:ab0f696135d3c155...@anonymous.poster...
> In article <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
> tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell) wrote:
> >
> > Based on what I'd heard in the media and in Bugliosi's book, I was
> > dead certain for the past seven years that OJ was the killer. But the
> William
> > Dear book threw all of that out the window. After reading that, I
> agree with
> > him that the best suspect is Jason Simpson.
>
>
> > I know there are people here who pin the murders on OJ, on
> Fuhrman, even on
> > Kato (!)... can anyone tell me why I SHOULDN'T believe Jason did it?
> No flames,
> > please... let's just talk about the facts of the case.
>
> Maybe Jason Simpson was an accomplice who did the actual knifework.
Neil Schulman's goofy "Ron Shipp did it" theory deserves some mention here.
It's
totally absurd and puzzleheaded, but no more so than "Fuhrman/Kato/Jason
did it."
confused
> Not all of the physical evidence points to OJ, either. Police discovered
>one bloody shoeprint at the scene that did *not* match those left by the Bruno
>Maglis.
Where was this "one bloody shoeprint" found?
MIRSE
From: tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell)
Date: 6/11/01 4:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
**********
Let me see if I have this straight.
1. O.J. is lying around his room between 10:30 and 10:45 p.m. getting ready to
go to the airport.
2. Suddenly, he gets a frantic call from his older son Jason, who tells O.J.
that he did something terrible and had murdered Nicole and her friend.
3. Simpson, thinking that Jason might be going crazy and making all this up,
gets dressed, picks up a blue cap that just happens to be lying nearby, picks
up some gloves, and and rushes over to Nicole's.
4. What, pray tell, is limo driver Park during O.J.'s emergency trip to
Nicole's?
We know that he got to Simpson's home much earlier than he was expected. I
believe he arrived just before 10:30 p.m.?
5. Obviously, O.J. didn't know that Park had arrived early. So, how could O.J.
drive quickly away in his white Bronco without Park hearing or seeing him?
6. Somehow, O.J. is able to drive over to
Nicole's, walk to the backgate TWICE, check out the bodies, and then return
back to his own home in time to be seen by the limo driver Park around 10:55
p.m.
6. To me, such a theory has too many holes to be taken seriously.
7. I don't think that even Superman with all his powers could have made such a
very tight timeline, so how could anyone expect a mere earthling like football
hero O.J. to make such a timeline?
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
From: tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell)
Date: 6/11/01 4:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
Based on what I'd heard in the media and in Bugliosi's book, I was
**********
What did you think about what the author said about Shipp, the retired police
officer who used to be a friend of Simpson and who testified against Simpson at
the criminal trial?
Mi...@aol.com
Ted Bell
> >for those found in the samples. But, being OJ's son, Jason's DNA would naturally
> >be very close to OJ's.
>
> Did Dear say that or is that from you? It is hard for me to believe
> that someone who claims to be an experienced detective could be so
> ignorant of DNA analysis that he would say something that stupid.
And you *do* know all about DNA analysis? Quoting from the Dear book:
"According to the book 'Killing Time' by Donald Freed and Raymond P. Briggs,
Ph.D., the DNA experts interviewed for this study explained that any blood
drops at Bundy, left by any of the four children (Jason, Arnelle, Sydney, Justin),
would have been virtually indistinguishable from the blood of their father, OJ."
(Dear, "OJ is Guilty But Not of Murder," page 330.)
confused
> The blood and hair analysis didn't prove that the blood drops and hairs were
>indisputably OJ's. The analysis showed that OJ's DNA was an extremely close match
>for those found in the samples. But, being OJ's son, Jason's DNA would naturally
>be very close to OJ's.
You really do not understand DNA, do you, Jason's DNA is only half
Simpson's that isn't close. The markers they study all have to match
for it to be a match. Only half of them would match for jason.
>In fact, the authorities didn't even interview him.
I know a detective that says you are wrong.
>> It wasn't Jason's bathroom that an empty Swiss Army Knife box was seen and
>> photographed.
> The knife wounds found in the victims didn't match the size and shape of the
>Swiss Army Knife.
Really? What expert told you that? Mark Fuhrman was on a talk show
with a swiss army knife that fit the wounds perfectly.
>However, there's a knife in the standard chef's kit that *does*
>match the size, shape and width of the wounds. And Jason's girlfriend confirmed that
>Jason did have his chef's kit with him that night, after he left Jackson's Restaurant
>where he'd been working.
Again Really? I believe it was discussed that Jason didn't have a
girlfriend at the time. Seems he had assaulted the previous one.
MIRSE
From: tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell)
Date: 6/11/01 4:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
Based on what I'd heard in the media and in Bugliosi's book, I was
**********
I haven't read the book, but I have read several reviews of the book.
1. For instance, as I understand author Dear's theory, Dear has no doubt that
Simpson wore the gloves to Nicole's after receiving a call from a distraught
Jason and that he left one of the gloves at Nicole's.
2. So it seems to me that Dear is saying that the glove Simpson put on at the
trial in front of a national tv audience, contrary to what Simpson supporters
say, did indeed fit, because the gloves belonged to Simpson in the first place.
3. What did defense lawyer Cochran say: "If the glove don't fit, you must
acquit", or somthing like that.
4. Well, according to author Dear in his new book, the gloves not only DID
fit, the gloves came from Simpson's own house.
5. So, I guess the new glove slogan should be " If the glove fit, you must
convict", if we are to follow defense lawyer
Cochran's reasoning above.
6. Poor author Dear: He has the gloves found at Nicole's home and at Simpson's
back walkway on Simpson's hands, and he has Simpson leaving his blood on the
walkway.
7. I guess the only thing left for author Dear to do is to put a rope around
Simpson's neck, because once Dear puts Simpson at the murder scene, puts the
gloves on Simpson's hands, puts the cap on Simpson's head, and puts Simpson's
blood at the murder scene, who in their right mind is going to believe that
someone else besides Simpson butchered Nicole and Goldman? As I said, the only
thing left for Dear to do is to put a rope around Simpson's neck.
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>From: tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell)
>Date: 6/11/01 9:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
Dear doesn't argue that OJ wasn't at the crime scene. He argues that he
*was*
at the scene, after Jason had fled. And as I pointed out in another post,
police found a blood shoeprint that didn't match those created by the Bruno
Maglis.
**********
If the statement is true, doesn't it bother you that the person left ONLY
one bloody shoeprint that didn't match the Bruno Maglis shoes?
1. I mean, the person who left that strange bloody shoeprint must have taken
more than one step, it seems to me.
2. Did he step in blood, leave ONE bloody shoeprint and then fly away, so that
he didn't leave any more blood prints?
3. I just find it difficult to believe that a person would walk through blood
or any other liquid and leave a trail of only ONE bloody shoeprint.
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
And you *do* know all about DNA analysis? Quoting from the Dear book:
"According to the book 'Killing Time' by Donald Freed and Raymond P. Briggs,
Ph.D., the DNA experts interviewed for this study explained that any blood
drops at Bundy, left by any of the four children (Jason, Arnelle, Sydney,
Justin),
would have been virtually indistinguishable from the blood of their father,
OJ."
(Dear, "OJ is Guilty But Not of Murder," page 330.)
************
I wonder if the authors of the book above really understood basic DNA. DNA
technology and public information about DNA has come a long way since the
author's wrote their book.
1. For instance, let's suppose O.J. and his son Jason made love to the same
woman, and the woman had a child.
2. The woman asks for DNA tests to determine paternity.
3. Do you really believe that O.J.'s and Jason's DNA tests would come out
identical?
4. As I understand it, the only chance that O.J.'s DNA and another person' s
DNA would be the same is if the other person was O.J.'s identical twin.
5. So, since O.J. and Jason were not twins but father and son, the DNA tests
would not come out the same.
Mi...@aol.com
Kristin VanAllen
Ted Bell wrote:
> Bob August <boba...@lvcm.com> wrote...
>
> > It wasn't Jason's blood that was found at the murder scene, and in Simpson's Bronco
> > mixed with the victims blood, and at Rockingham, and on the killer's right hand
> > glove, and on Simpson's socks.
> >
> > It wasn't Jason's hair found in the killer's hat.
>
> The blood and hair analysis didn't prove that the blood drops and hairs were
> indisputably OJ's. The analysis showed that OJ's DNA was an extremely close match
> for those found in the samples. But, being OJ's son, Jason's DNA would naturally
> be very close to OJ's
wrong - it could only be half from OJ.
Kristin VanAllen
distinguishable from either parent.
ste...@webtv.net
>Not all of the physical evidence points to
>OJ, either. Police discovered one bloody
>shoeprint at the scene that did *not*
>match those left by the Bruno Maglis.
The police also swear that they checked those shoeprints with all the
officers that were at the scene and all suspects.
I love a mystery!
Trust God, but lock your car.
ste...@webtv.net
>Based on what I'd heard in the media and
>in Bugliosi's book, I was dead certain for
>the past seven years that OJ was the
>killer. But the William Dear book threw all
>of that out the window. After reading that,
>I agree with him that the best suspect is
>Jason Simpson.
Exactly what, specifically, turned your opinion from Simpson to his son
Jason? Feel free to answer in as much detail as possible.
> I know there are people here who pin
>the murders on OJ, on Fuhrman, even on
>Kato (!)... can anyone tell me why I
>SHOULDN'T believe Jason did it? No
>flames, please... let's just talk about the
>facts of the case.
You can believe what you will. But the statement, Jason gave to the
police when questioned, of having been at the time of the commission of
the murders elsewhere than at Bundy probably had a lot to do with him
not being considered very long as a suspect by the police.
Ted Bell
Quoting from Dear's book:
"I casually walked the length of the alley, pausing momentarily at
the locked, seven-foot metal gate which opened onto the rear of Nicole's
condo. It was here, police claimed, that the killer exited. Bloody
footprints, believed to have been OJ's, had been found both coming and
going along the narrow, one-hundred-and-twenty foot walk
leading to the rear of the condo. This evidence suggested that OJ-- if
indeed the Bruno Magli shoe prints belonged to him-- had left the front
of the condo where the murders had taken place, then returned, perhaps
to try and recover his stocking cap and glove.
"The footprints, like the cap and glove, were certainly compelling
circumstantial evidence that OJ had been at the crime scene. However, I
couldn't conclude from this same evidence that he committed the murders.
Not only had other, unidentified shoe prints been found at the crime
scene, but investigators had also reported finding blood and skin under
Nicole's fingernails-- suggesting she had fought or clawed at her
attacker-- along with blood drops on her back that didn't match those of
her ex-husband. And though the LAPD had found nine sets of fingerprints
at the crime scene, none belonged to OJ." (Dear, page 26.)
The photo section in Dear's book includes a color shot of Mark
Fuhrman crouching at the crime scene (Nicole's body plainly visible, with
blood everywhere), and he isn't wearing plastic booties over his street
shoes to avoid contaminating the footprint evidence with his own shoe prints.
Concerning the fingerprints, Dear adds on page 307:
"One thing I did learn in Los Angeles was that the unidentified fingerprints found
at the Bundy Drive crime scene were compared with fifteen others. None of the
fifteen had a match with those that were unidentified at the crime scene.
"Jason Lamar Simpson's fingerprints were not among the fifteen compared
to the unidentified prints found at the scene."
Ted Bell
> What did you think about what the author said about Shipp, the retired
> police officer who used to be a friend of Simpson and who testified
> against Simpson at the criminal trial?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Dear writes about his interview with
Shipp, and about how adamant Shipp was that OJ had to have been the guilty one.
Asked about his experiences with Jason, Shipp agrees that the young man was
emotionally unstable and had been beaten by OJ, and even says that one time,
while he (Shipp) had been visiting Nicole at her old Gretna Green house, Nicole
had suddenly jumped up and investigated the front of the house, saying she
thought she'd seen someone spying on her through the window. Shipp says he asked
her if it'd been OJ, and she said no, that it had looked like Jason.
Dear says that after he laid out his case to Shipp after his interview, that
Shipp admitted he was now having doubts about OJ being the guilty party:
"I honestly don't know what to believe at this point." (See pages
195-211)
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
The author Dear has suckered you into spending some money on a book that is not factually
correct, There is only one set of shoe prints on the walkway, made from Bruno Magli
shoes, leaving Nicole's condo. Yes there is an area where it looks like Simpson turned
around, although Bodziak disagrees with that conclusion. But that area is between the
Lower Walk and the Upper Walk near where the victims were found. It has nothing to do
with the one set of shoe prints that were found on the Back Walk, the greater distance,
leading to the rear gate.
All of the the police officers submitted their shoes for Bodziak to compare with. Bodziak
found that there was only one set of bloody shoe prints at Bundy left by the killer.
Bruno Magli, Lorenzo style, Silga sole, size 12.
There was no evidence that Nicole had any skin from clawing her assailant, under her
finger nails. She had defensive wounds on her hands from her killer's knife. There was
one speck under one of her fingernails, on one of her hands, that was determined to be
her own degraded blood. That hand was lying in a pool of her own blood. DNA analysis
confirmed that it was her blood. No one else's.
All of the blood found at the murder scene, in Simpson's Bronco, and at North Rockingham
came from only three people, the two victims and the killer. Nicole Brown, Ronald
Goldman, and Orenthal James Simpson.
The unidentified fingerprints that the police found at South Bundy were found in and
around Nicole's house. They were all different individual prints that had nothing to do
with the murders. Just as every house has unidentified fingerprints from various people
who visit it over time.
Nothing at the crime scene has anything to do with Jason Simpson, and everything to do
with Orenthal James Simpson, the proven killer.
bobaugust
MIRSE
>Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
>
This is Mirse. The reason I ask you about Shipp is this: Did you see an
interview in newtimesla.com concerning author William Dear and Shipp?
The interview was printed in the May 23, 2001 issue, the author is Tony
Ortega.
The title is "O.J. Confidential."
Below is the part of the article concerning Shipp. Shipp is highly critical
of Dear's investigative skills and his skill as an author: Mi...@aol.com
"Ron Shipp says he's sick to death of the Simpson case and wishes it would go
away. A retired LAPD officer and former O.J. friend, Shipp became a bit player
in the drama when it was revealed that O.J. admitted to him the day after the
murders that he had fantasized about killing his ex-wife. Amateur investigators
have accused Shipp of having had something to do with the murders. But even
Dear says Shipp has an airtight alibi for the night of June 12 (he was at home
with his wife and children). Shipp no longer talks to the press unless he's
paid substantial amounts, he says. But he agreed to talk to New Times without
charge when he heard the subject was Bill Dear."Dear is supposedly a renowned
detective," Shipp says. "But I was really surprised that a guy with his
reputation seemed so gullible."
Shipp says he's incensed that he has such a big role in Dear's book -- the
investigator devotes a key chapter to him -- and adds that he's consulted an
attorney about possible legal action. Shipp says Dear badly mischaracterized
his words, and gave the false impression that Shipp was impressed by Dear's
theory. "I think it's crap," Shipp says.
He's especially angry about Dear's mischaracterizing of his conversations with
Brown regarding Jason. In his book Dear relates the startling information that
shortly before the murders, Brown confided to Shipp that she believed Jason was
spying on her.
Shipp says that's a serious distortion. During their conversation, Shipp says,
Brown told him she believed O.J. was watching her to garner information about
who she might be dating. She had spotted someone outside her apartment, she
told Shipp, and guessed O.J. had been lurking. Later in the conversation, Shipp
says, Brown admitted she hadn't clearly seen whoever was outside her apartment.
She then said it could have been Jason.
It was clear, Shipp says, that Brown wasn't sure who she'd seen. And she
certainly didn't claim that because the figure might have been Jason he had
been stalking her. Shipp made this clear to Dear, he says, but it didn't
prevent Dear from seizing on it in his book as a crucial piece of "evidence"
against Jason. "This turned out to be extremely important to me," Dear writes.
"Jason wanted to know who Nicole was seeing. He was jealous, just like his
dad."
Shipp says he doesn't think much of Dear's analysis. "Jason has had his
problems. But could he kill people? I don't think so."
Shipp was also unhappy with the way Dear used Shipp's words to exonerate O.J.
The day after the murders, Shipp had been alone with O.J. in the former
footballer's Rockingham bedroom. It was there that O.J., wearing only boxer
shorts, admitted he was afraid of taking a polygraph exam because he had had
thoughts of killing Brown in the past. O.J. believed such thoughts might
confuse the results of such a test. Shipp says it was at that point that he
began to think his old friend had committed the murders. Why else would someone
really be afraid of taking a lie-detector test?
But what Dear finds more significant is that Shipp, in describing O.J., says he
didn't seem to have any cuts or bruises on his body (other than the bandaged
finger on his left hand). Dear says whoever killed Goldman would have been
bloodied and bruised from the young waiter's desperate attempts at
self-defense, and O.J.'s lack of marks proved he hadn't committed that slaying.
But Shipp, who is African-American, says he explained to Dear that this wasn't
necessarily so. "I played a lot of football, and I'm a little bit lighter
skinned than O.J. But I seldom bruised so that you could see it. It's just not
going to show. I explained that to him. But of course he left that out of his
book."
Dear also left out another significant fact. Shipp told him that on that same
day, June 13, Shipp had also seen Jason at the Rockingham estate. And the young
man, Shipp says, also showed no signs of cuts or bruises: "Jason looked fine to
me.' "
Prien
>Date: 6/12/2001 4:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010612045436...@ng-ba1.aol.com>
Notes:
>3. I just find it difficult to believe that a person would walk through
>blood
>or any other liquid and leave a trail of only ONE bloody shoeprint.
Mirse, for once, and only this once, I will at least (or last) concede you have
a point.
Prien
Ted Bell
> If the statement is true, doesn't it bother you that the person left ONLY
> one bloody shoeprint that didn't match the Bruno Maglis shoes?
> 1. I mean, the person who left that strange bloody shoeprint must have taken
> more than one step, it seems to me.
>
> 2. Did he step in blood, leave ONE bloody shoeprint and then fly away, so that
> he didn't leave any more blood prints?
>
> 3. I just find it difficult to believe that a person would walk through blood
> or any other liquid and leave a trail of only ONE bloody shoeprint.
You could if you were investigating what you knew was a crime scene, and you were
trying not to step into any pools of blood. If Fuhrman and the other investigators
could manage that trick, why couldn't OJ have done the same thing the night
before--- after, say, Jason (wearing his dad's Bruno Maglis) had slashed the
victims to death?
In Dear's argument, either Jason or OJ could have been the
one in the Bruno Maglis. If it had been Jason, that would explain the number of
shoeprints that match the Brunos. If Dear is correct about OJ coming on the scene
shortly after Jason fled, it makes sense that OJ would have been careful as
possible not to leave any signs of his having been there: he'd be wearing dark
clothing in hopes that no one would see him entering or leaving the crime scene,
and he'd be wearing gloves to avoid leaving his fingerprints. And he'd be stepping
over and around the obvious pools of blood, to avoid leaving footprints.
Unfortunately for OJ, he removed one glove (Dear wonders if he may have removed it
so he could check Nicole's wrist for a pulse) and managed to drop it
at the scene, before he had to rush back to Rockingham, in hopes of getting
there before his limo could arrive.
Let me turn this around. The person who slashed Nicole and Goldman to death
had to have been a bloody mess after the attack. As Dr. Henry Lee testified
at the trial, the "killer would have been covered in blood." Those Bruno Maglis
were bloody enough to leave a lot of bloody footprints. If that person was OJ, why
were there *only a few tiny traces of blood* in his Bronco? There was *no* blood on
the gas pedal, and *no* blood on the brake pedal, and only a few little drops inside the
cab here and there.
The blood that WAS discovered in the Bronco puts OJ at the crime
scene, as almost all of us agree. But if OJ had been the mad slasher, where are
all the splatters, smears and stains that would *have* to have been left there?
Ted Bell
> The author Dear has suckered you into spending some money on a book that is not factually
> correct, There is only one set of shoe prints on the walkway, made from Bruno Magli
> shoes, leaving Nicole's condo. Yes there is an area where it looks like Simpson turned
> around, although Bodziak disagrees with that conclusion. But that area is between the
> Lower Walk and the Upper Walk near where the victims were found. It has nothing to do
> with the one set of shoe prints that were found on the Back Walk, the greater distance,
> leading to the rear gate.
If *these* prints match *those* prints, how do we know that one set "has
nothing to do with" the other?
When you say "yes there is an area where it looks like Simpson turned around,"
you seem to be agreeing with Dear, who's simply saying the same thing, though he
isn't as sure as you are that it was OJ.
> All of the the police officers submitted their shoes for Bodziak to compare with. Bodziak
> found that there was only one set of bloody shoe prints at Bundy left by the killer.
> Bruno Magli, Lorenzo style, Silga sole, size 12.
The assumption here is that no one could have left shoe prints at the scene
except the killer and the investigators. *Why* couldn't someone else have also
been at the scene? If numerous police investigators were able to visit the crime
scene without leaving bloody footprints everywhere, why couldn't someone else
have done the same thing the night of the murders? How much skill does it take
to step *over* a puddle of blood, rather than into it?
> There was no evidence that Nicole had any skin from clawing her assailant, under her
> finger nails. She had defensive wounds on her hands from her killer's knife. There was
> one speck under one of her fingernails, on one of her hands, that was determined to be
> her own degraded blood. That hand was lying in a pool of her own blood. DNA analysis
> confirmed that it was her blood. No one else's.
Dear doesn't give the source of his allegation that unidentified skin material
was found under Nicole's nail, so I can't address this issue. I'd like to know more
about it.
> All of the blood found at the murder scene, in Simpson's Bronco, and at North Rockingham
> came from only three people, the two victims and the killer. Nicole Brown, Ronald
> Goldman, and Orenthal James Simpson.
We can't assume that if only three people's blood has been identified, then
only three people could have been involved in the crime. Isn't it possible that
blood from another person was there, but was never identified? Isn't it possible
that another person could have been there, and *was* dealt some kind of injury,
*without* leaving blood on the paved walkway? Are you saying it was impossible
for another person to have been involved in the killings? If so, why was it
impossible?
> The unidentified fingerprints that the police found at South Bundy were found in and
> around Nicole's house. They were all different individual prints that had nothing to do
> with the murders.
If the prints are from unidentified persons, how can they be ruled out? How can
an investigator say, "I have no idea who left this fingerprint, but there's no way
he or she had anything to do with the murders?"
> Nothing at the crime scene has anything to do with Jason Simpson, and everything to do
> with Orenthal James Simpson, the proven killer.
The punctures in the bodies of the victims, according to experts Dear consulted,
match the dimensions of a specific knife included in the standard chef's kit,
exactly like the one Jason owned at the time of the killings. Both Jason's
girlfriend, Jennifer Green, and Jason himself in his civil-trial deposition,
confirmed that he had that chef's kit with him when he left work on the night
of the killings. Jason's co-worker, Karl Fernandez, told Dear that Jason had left
the restaurant between 9:30 and 9:45 that evening. Jennifer, who picked up
Jason at the restaurant, said it was 9:45. (And Jason admitted in his deposition
that he dropped Jennifer off at her apartment, without going in with her, then
went on his way.) All of this was only a few minutes' drive from Bundy.
Therefore, Jason had plenty of time to commit the killings, and he had a weapon
that fits the description of the knife wounds. Unidentified fingerprints and/or
shoe prints at Bundy may have been left by Jason; the police never took blood
samples or fingerprints from him.
I've heard a lot about why you think OJ committed the murders. What I'm still
waiting to hear about is evidence that proves Jason had no role whatsoever.
Is there any?
Ted Bell
> **********
> This is Mirse. The reason I ask you about Shipp is this: Did you see an
> interview in newtimesla.com concerning author William Dear and Shipp?
No, I hadn't... thanks for posting it here.
> "Ron Shipp says he's sick to death of the Simpson case and wishes it would go
> away. A retired LAPD officer and former O.J. friend, Shipp became a bit player
> in the drama when it was revealed that O.J. admitted to him the day after the
> murders that he had fantasized about killing his ex-wife. Amateur investigators
> have accused Shipp of having had something to do with the murders. But even
> Dear says Shipp has an airtight alibi for the night of June 12 (he was at home
> with his wife and children). Shipp no longer talks to the press unless he's
> paid substantial amounts, he says. But he agreed to talk to New Times without
> charge when he heard the subject was Bill Dear."Dear is supposedly a renowned
> detective," Shipp says. "But I was really surprised that a guy with his
> reputation seemed so gullible."
Dear was "gullible" for believing what Shipp was telling him? Was there
any reason for him *not* to believe what Shipp was saying? Was Shipp lying to
Dear?
The book quotes Shipp saying, "I'll tell you the truth just as if
I were on a witness stand." (page 199) If Shipp *wasn't* lying to him, why was
Dear "gullible" for accepting what Shipp was telling him?
> Shipp says he's incensed that he has such a big role in Dear's book -- the
> investigator devotes a key chapter to him -- and adds that he's consulted an
> attorney about possible legal action.
The section that deals with Shipp represents only 17 pages in a 339-page
book. Until you've read it for yourself, you'll have to take my word for
this, but Shipp really doesn't play a "big role" in the book.
> He's especially angry about Dear's mischaracterizing of his conversations with
> Brown regarding Jason. In his book Dear relates the startling information that
> shortly before the murders, Brown confided to Shipp that she believed Jason was
> spying on her.
> Shipp says that's a serious distortion. During their conversation, Shipp says,
> Brown told him she believed O.J. was watching her to garner information about
> who she might be dating. She had spotted someone outside her apartment, she
> told Shipp, and guessed O.J. had been lurking. Later in the conversation, Shipp
> says, Brown admitted she hadn't clearly seen whoever was outside her apartment.
> She then said it could have been Jason.
> It was clear, Shipp says, that Brown wasn't sure who she'd seen. And she
> certainly didn't claim that because the figure might have been Jason he had
> been stalking her.
I don't see where the "serious distortion" is. If Nicole believed that "OJ
had been lurking," and then said it might have been Jason instead, then she's
saying it might have been Jason who was "lurking" outside her window, uninvited.
This lurking doesn't seem so different from stalking to me.
> Shipp says he doesn't think much of Dear's analysis. "Jason has had his
> problems. But could he kill people? I don't think so."
At the time of the murders, Jason was on probation for assaulting
a former employer (Paul Goldberg). And only six weeks before the murders,
he'd assaulted his girlfriend, choking her in front of witnesses who pulled him
off her. This attack even made it into the pages of the National Enquirer
(October 4, 1994). Dear interviewed one of the witnesses to this attack. Also,
Jason's medical records disclosed as many as three suicide attempts, including
one incident in which he stabbed himself in the stomach with a pair of scissors.
> Shipp was also unhappy with the way Dear used Shipp's words to exonerate O.J.
> The day after the murders, Shipp had been alone with O.J. in the former
> footballer's Rockingham bedroom. It was there that O.J., wearing only boxer
> shorts, admitted he was afraid of taking a polygraph exam because he had had
> thoughts of killing Brown in the past.
> But what Dear finds more significant is that Shipp, in describing O.J., says he
> didn't seem to have any cuts or bruises on his body (other than the bandaged
> finger on his left hand). Dear says whoever killed Goldman would have been
> bloodied and bruised from the young waiter's desperate attempts at
> self-defense, and O.J.'s lack of marks proved he hadn't committed that slaying.
>
> But Shipp, who is African-American, says he explained to Dear that this wasn't
> necessarily so. "I played a lot of football, and I'm a little bit lighter
> skinned than O.J. But I seldom bruised so that you could see it. It's just not
> going to show. I explained that to him. But of course he left that out of his
> book."
> Dear also left out another significant fact. Shipp told him that on that same
> day, June 13, Shipp had also seen Jason at the Rockingham estate. And the young
> man, Shipp says, also showed no signs of cuts or bruises: "Jason looked fine to
> me.' "
Isn't this remarkable logic? Shipp was sure OJ was the murderer, *even though*
he couldn't see any cuts or bruises on his body. Yet Shipp shrugs off the
possibility that Jason was the killer *because* he couldn't see any cuts or
bruises on *his* body.
If OJ's dark skin could have hidden bruises, why couldn't Jason's equally-dark
skin have also hidden bruises?
MIRSE
>Date: 6/12/01 11:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
>
The blood that WAS discovered in the Bronco puts OJ at the crime
scene, as almost all of us agree. But if OJ had been the mad slasher, where are
all the splatters, smears and stains that would *have* to have been left there?
*********
Did you say above that you agree that O.J. was at the crime scene?
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>From: tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell)
>Date: 6/12/01 11:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
And he'd be stepping
over and around the obvious pools of blood, to avoid leaving footprints.
*********
I don't understand your statement above: Are you saying that Simpson DID step
in the blood, or are you saying Simpson DID NOT step in the blood?
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>From: tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell)
>Date: 6/12/01 11:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
Let me turn this around. The person who slashed Nicole and Goldman to death
had to have been a bloody mess after the attack. As Dr. Henry Lee testified
at the trial, the "killer would have been covered in blood."
********
Could you explain further why you say that the killer "had to have been a
bloody mess after the attack"?
If the killer was behind Nicole when he cut her throat and Nicole was lying
on the ground at the time, then why would the killer have blood all over him?
Mi...@aol.com
John Griffin
"MIRSE" <mi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010613030055...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
He's saying Simpson can see in the dark.
Robert H. Risch
wrote:
> I've heard a lot about why you think OJ committed the murders. What I'm still
>waiting to hear about is evidence that proves Jason had no role whatsoever.
I think you are backing off. You were demanding before that we prove
that Jason wasn't the actual murderer. So far, I agree that it is
possible that Jason may have supplied OJ with the knife and watched
and perhaps restrained Goldman, as OJ did the deed, or maybe went to
Rockingham and cleaned up for OJ. The "Jason did it and OJ came
later" is not a reasonable scenario. I suggest you do the homework
that Dear didn't do and check up on some of the assertions about the
physical evidence by reading the transcripts and the better books on
the evidence in the case. For the latter I recommend, Rantala,
Fuhrman, Lange/Vannatter, Goldberg. To learn something about DNA
identification, try Crime Lab by Houde. Of course you may continue as
a true Internet troll by repeating Dear's nonsense and making a fool
out of yourself. Unfortunately that is the standard procedure on the
Web.
RHR
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
Ted Bell,
You say,"Isn't it possible that blood from another person was there, but was never identified?
Isn't it possible
that another person could have been there, and *was* dealt some kind of injury, *without*
leaving blood on the paved walkway? Are you saying it was impossible for another person to have
been involved in the killings? If so, why was it impossible?"
Yes, I am saying that there was no other person involved in the murders. Once again, all of the
blood collected and tested, and there was a large amount, all came from only three people. The
two victims and the killer.
We know that there was only one killer because there is only one kind of shoes that made all of
the bloody shoe prints. Could someone have walked through the crime scene after the murders and
not left bloody shoe prints? Of course.
Could someone have been involved in the actual killings and not leave bloody shoe prints? Not
likely. All of the relevant physical evidence points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer.
You say Jason supposedly left work at 9:45 and had plenty of time to commit the murders. It
doesn't matter how much time he had. The murders were not committed until after 10:30.
Simpson's Bronco was seen leaving the area about five to ten minutes after the actual killings.
Simpson was seen and identified by Jill Shively speeding back home with his lights off. Simpson
was seen by Allan Park entering his house before 11:00.
Jason Simpson was not involved in these murders. There is not one single piece of relevant
physical evidence to support that fantasy speculation. Sorry, but the author Dear's theory is
just another failed attempt to try and show that Simpson was not the killer. No theory has ever
or can ever do that. They all fail when confronted with the known facts and evidence. The
simple truth is that Simpson was the killer.
bobaugust
Jon Beaver
Risch, no one can fault you for feeling compelled by your "homework"
to belief what you do. Just try to recognize that, in the end, all
belief involves a leap beyond logic. One man's leap is as good as
another's.
- Jon Beaver
Robert H. Risch
wrote:
>Just try to recognize that, in the end, all
>belief involves a leap beyond logic. One man's leap is as good as
>another's.
>
>- Jon Beaver
The second statement doesn't follow from the first. You wouldn't say
that the leaps made by Darwin and Einstein were no better than those
of we ordinary mortals?
RHR
MIRSE
Date: 6/13/01 10:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <aoseits3i5k3s2pu0...@4ax.com>
- Jon Beaver
**********
I don't think so. For instance, it appears logical to me that the energy
crisis in California was the fault of President Bill Clinton. Am I right?
I mean, according to your statement above, my leap in logic is as good as
another person who believes that the fault lies solely with the elected
officials of California and the people who elected them. Mi...@aol.om
Kristin VanAllen
Ted Bell wrote:
> mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote...
>
> > If the statement is true, doesn't it bother you that the person left ONLY
> > one bloody shoeprint that didn't match the Bruno Maglis shoes?
> > 1. I mean, the person who left that strange bloody shoeprint must have taken
> > more than one step, it seems to me.
> >
> > 2. Did he step in blood, leave ONE bloody shoeprint and then fly away, so that
> > he didn't leave any more blood prints?
> >
> > 3. I just find it difficult to believe that a person would walk through blood
> > or any other liquid and leave a trail of only ONE bloody shoeprint.
>
> You could if you were investigating what you knew was a crime scene, and you were
> trying not to step into any pools of blood. If Fuhrman and the other investigators
> could manage that trick, why couldn't OJ have done the same thing the night
> before--- after, say, Jason (wearing his dad's Bruno Maglis) had slashed the
> victims to death?
Apparently Oj didn't - he even cut himself and left blood in the bronco
>
>
> In Dear's argument, either Jason or OJ could have been the
> one in the Bruno Maglis.
what shoe size is Jason? Why did OJ deny owning those 'ugly ass" shoes?
> If it had been Jason, that would explain the number of
> shoeprints that match the Brunos. If Dear is correct about OJ coming on the scene
> shortly after Jason fled, it makes sense that OJ would have been careful as
> possible not to leave any signs of his having been there: he'd be wearing dark
> clothing in hopes that no one would see him entering or leaving the crime scene,
> and he'd be wearing gloves to avoid leaving his fingerprints. And he'd be stepping
> over and around the obvious pools of blood, to avoid leaving footprints.
Oj was in the dark
>
>
> Unfortunately for OJ, he removed one glove (Dear wonders if he may have removed it
> so he could check Nicole's wrist for a pulse) and managed to drop it
> at the scene, before he had to rush back to Rockingham, in hopes of getting
> there before his limo could arrive.
he also managed to get massive amounts of Nicoles and Ron's blood on both gloves.
>
>
> Let me turn this around. The person who slashed Nicole and Goldman to death
> had to have been a bloody mess after the attack. As Dr. Henry Lee testified
> at the trial, the "killer would have been covered in blood."
Ron did not gush blood - no covered in blood there. Also, Nicole was cut from behind - so no
covered in blood there either.
> Those Bruno Maglis
> were bloody enough to leave a lot of bloody footprints.
that faded out as the surface blood was left on the sidewalk.
> If that person was OJ, why
> were there *only a few tiny traces of blood* in his Bronco?
The bronco was obviously wiped down. There was also a partial shoeprint of Nicole's blood
indicating that whoever stepped in her blood at bundy and left the shoe prints had blood in
the crevices that were absorbed by the contact with the Bronco carpet in the grooves.
> There was *no* blood on
> the gas pedal, and *no* blood on the brake pedal, and only a few little drops inside the
> cab here and there.
iuf that is true, why would there be? The only blood left was in the crevices and left in
the carpet. By the time the shoe stepped on the gas pedal and the brake, one would not
expect ot find blood. Also, Oj could have taken off the shoes after he got in the car and
left the partial bloody shoe print and before stepping on the brake or gas pedal.
>
>
> The blood that WAS discovered in the Bronco puts OJ at the crime
> scene, as almost all of us agree. But if OJ had been the mad slasher, where are
> all the splatters, smears and stains that would *have* to have been left there?
Maybe you can tell us how all of this blood could possibly get on him. He cut her throat
from behind, so unless blood spurts do loops, there would not be any blood spurt on himself.
None of Ron's wounds were gushers - one would not expect the killer to be "covered" in
blood.
However, he did get Nicole's blood on his sock.
Portctygirl
> Let me turn this around. The person who slashed Nicole and Goldman to death
>had to have been a bloody mess after the attack. As Dr. Henry Lee testified
>at the trial, the "killer would have been covered in blood."
That's if you believe Henry Lee. As far as I'm concerned, he's nothing more
than a lap dog for the defense. Why would the killer *have* to be covered in
blood? Simpson cut Nicole's throat from behind, that would cause very little,
if any blood to be on his person; Ron bled down himself,his leg mostly, and the
bleeding that caused his death was internal. So, again, why would the killer
*have* to be covered in blood? Lee also stated on a talk show, just the other
day, that there were bloody size 10 footprints also found at the Bundy crime
scene; a blatant lie that nobody in the auidience seemed to notice, I was
amazed. It's hard for me to believe Lee is considered such an *expert* in
forensic science; I saw him misrepresent every piece of evidence he talked
about on this show the other day, as well as tell the outright lie about a size
10 bloody shoe print.
>Those Bruno Maglis
>were bloody enough to leave a lot of bloody footprints. If that person was
>OJ, why
>were there *only a few tiny traces of blood* in his Bronco? There was *no*
>blood on
>the gas pedal, and *no* blood on the brake pedal, and only a few little drops
>inside the
>cab here and there.
Perhaps Simpson walked through some grass,outside the fence, as he went to his
Bronco, intentionally or unintentionally wiping most of the blood off the
bottom of his shoes? I'd guess that would be an intentional move, but that's
just my guess.
You say>>>>>>Those Bruno Maglis
>were bloody enough to leave a lot of bloody footprints. If that person was
>OJ, why
>were there *only a few tiny traces of blood* in his Bronco?
If that person were not Simpson, then why ANY blood in the Bronco at all? If
you'll also recall, there was the faint imprint, in blood, in the Bronco, of
the Bruno Magli shoe, the same as was found at the scene.
I am curious, does Dear make any mention of what Jason Simpson's motives may
have been in killing Nicole? And I really can't imagine anyone committing this
crime, and running to call anyone to tell them about it, that makes no sense.
> The blood that WAS discovered in the Bronco puts OJ at the crime
>scene, as almost all of us agree. But if OJ had been the mad slasher, where
>are
>all the splatters, smears and stains that would *have* to have been left
>there?
Who says they would have *had* to have been left there? Lee again? Or Dear?
Carol
Robert H. Risch
>>From: tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell)
>
>> Let me turn this around. The person who slashed Nicole and Goldman to death
>>had to have been a bloody mess after the attack. As Dr. Henry Lee testified
>>at the trial, the "killer would have been covered in blood."
>
> That's if you believe Henry Lee.
Nobody has been harsher on Henry Lee than I have Carol. However I
doubt he ever said that. Using the search engine at the Walraven
site, the closest I got was the following:
MR. SCHECK: Well, let me ask you this, Dr. Lee. In a closed
environment, closed-in environment with hand-to-hand combat, with
multiple stab wounds, with blood stains in different places indicating
multiple contact smears with vertical droplets in the areas of the
different multiple contact smears, with other blood spatter cast off
in different directions, with the key in one area, beeper in another
area, in that kind of struggle, do you have an opinion as to whether
or not an assailant or assailants would be covered with blood from the
struggle?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is that opinion?
DR. LEE: In theory, should have some blood.
------------------------------------------------------
MR. GOLDBERG: --and the blood spurted forward, would you expect the
assailant to be covered in blood?
DR. LEE: Probably not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RHR
MIRSE
Date: 6/12/01 4:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote...
> What did you think about what the author said about Shipp, the retired
> police officer who used to be a friend of Simpson and who testified
> against Simpson at the criminal trial?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Dear writes about his interview with
Shipp, and about how adamant Shipp was that OJ had to have been the guilty one.
Asked about his experiences with Jason...
*******
Bell: I thought I wrote a response to your Shipp message above.
1. My message concerned a recent interview that Shipp gave to newtimesla.com
and was published on either May 23 or 24, 2001.
2. Shipp was highly critical of author Dear.
3. But I do not see my message on my AOL usenet newsgroup reader.
4. Do you know if my Shipp message was ever posted? Thanks. Mi...@aol.com
Ted Bell
>
> The blood that WAS discovered in the Bronco puts OJ at the crime
> scene, as almost all of us agree. But if OJ had been the mad slasher, where are
>
> all the splatters, smears and stains that would *have* to have been left there?
> *********
> Did you say above that you agree that O.J. was at the crime scene?
Yes. I think it was more likely to have been Jason who did the killings, but
that OJ rushed over to investigate before rushing back home again to meet his
limo driver.
Ted Bell
> And he'd be stepping
> over and around the obvious pools of blood, to avoid leaving footprints.
> *********
> I don't understand your statement above: Are you saying that Simpson DID step
> in the blood, or are you saying Simpson DID NOT step in the blood?
My theory is that OJ was as careful as he could be to not leave fingerprints or
footprints when he was at Bundy. But, whether because there wasn't a lot of light,
or because of his own haste or his shock at what he was discovering, he did leave
some evidence of his having been there. He picked up some traces of the victims'
blood, and these are the droplets that were later found in his Bronco. The
unidentified shoeprint that Dear refers to (which posters here dispute) may have
been left by OJ.
I don't think OJ left the bloody Bruno Magli shoeprints, though, because if
his shoes had been that bloody, they would have left plenty of blood on the
driver's side floor mat and on the gas and brake pedals. And in fact, only one
tiny droplet of blood was found on that floor mat, and no blood whatsoever was
found on the pedals.
Ted Bell
> Let me turn this around. The person who slashed Nicole and Goldman to death
> had to have been a bloody mess after the attack. As Dr. Henry Lee testified
> at the trial, the "killer would have been covered in blood."
> ********
> Could you explain further why you say that the killer "had to have been a
> bloody mess after the attack"?
> If the killer was behind Nicole when he cut her throat and Nicole was lying
> on the ground at the time, then why would the killer have blood all over him?
Nicole suffered numerous stab wounds. Goldman suffered even more stab wounds
than she had, and his scuffed knuckles suggest that he tried to fight his attacker
and made contact. The killer was swinging a bloody knife over and over, driving
it into his victims again and again as their blood gushed out. The crime scene
photos show a lot of blood in pools, streaks and smears in a fairly confined
area. There's just no way this killer could have avoided getting blood all over
him.
Ted Bell
> > step in the blood, or are you saying Simpson DID NOT step in the blood?
> He's saying Simpson can see in the dark.
The murders took place within a few feet of Nicole's front door. She would
probably have had the porch light on, since she'd been expecting someone to
bring those glasses over, and there may have been other lights on in the condo
as well, further illuminating the area. Besides that, the streetlamps on Bundy
would have provided at least a little light. There's no reason to believe that
these murders took place in pitch darkness.
John Griffin
"Ted Bell" <tedsofb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com...
I think you're really gullible. Not because you believe that I believe
you're gullible,
but for the same reason Shipp noticed that Dear was gullible. You, like
Dear, seem
to have swallowed a bunch of horse biscuits from a variety of horse's asses.
Shipp was trying to tell you that the fact that no one saw any bruises(*) is
meaningless.
If there are other things that need to be spelled out for you, just ask.
(*) O.J. "The Real Killer" SImpson did have a bruise on one arm. Someone
made the
laughable claim that it was an "old bruise," or some idiotic shit like that.
confused
> I've heard a lot about why you think OJ committed the murders. What I'm still
>waiting to hear about is evidence that proves Jason had no role whatsoever.
> Is there any?
What evidence is there that YOU had no role whatsoever? That is the
beauty of our system. The state has to prove guilt.
Why is it so important that simpson didn't do this?
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
Sorry but you think wrong. The murders were committed after 10:30. About five minutes
after the murders Robert Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from the crime
scene. Unless Jason was driving that Bronco and bleeding Simpson's blood your entire
belief is proven incorrect.
bobaugust
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
Ted Bell,
You evidently do not know the facts in this case. That is why your opinions are wrong.
Simpson left a bloody shoe print to the left of the break pedal on the Bronco carpet.
His bloody shoe prints on the walkway had faded out by the time he reached the rear
gate at Nicole's. But when he got in the Bronco, the carpet fibers transferred the
remainder of blood that was on his shoe sole. Simpson left his tiny blood drops, from
the cut on his finger, on the driver's door interior and two places on the instrument
panel. Blood on the steering wheel matched a mixture of Simpson's and Nicole's. Blood
on the center console matched Simpson's. More blood on the center console matched both
Simpson's and Goldman's. Several blood samples on the center console matched
Simpson's, Ron's, and Nicole's together. The bloody shoe print on the carpet was
Nicole's blood. Before Simpson left his Bronco, he tried to wipe up the blood he could
see. He didn't do a very good job. He was rushing and it was dark. He put a hat over
the bloody shoe print on the carpet to hide it.
Sorry but you are wrong.. The murders were committed after 10:30. About five minutes
after the murders Robert Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from the crime
scene. Unless Jason was driving that Bronco and bleeding Simpson's blood your entire
belief is proven wrong.
bobaugust
Kristin VanAllen
get his gloves and hat, get passed the limo driver who was buzzing his bell for 10
minutes already and go over there and get back, make noise behind kato's room and be
seen by 10:54??
Kristin VanAllen
Ted Bell wrote:
your facts are wrong. there was apartial shoe print of blood from the crevices of his
shoe on the mat.
Kristin VanAllen
Ted Bell wrote:
> mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote...
>
> > Let me turn this around. The person who slashed Nicole and Goldman to death
> > had to have been a bloody mess after the attack. As Dr. Henry Lee testified
> > at the trial, the "killer would have been covered in blood."
> > ********
> > Could you explain further why you say that the killer "had to have been a
> > bloody mess after the attack"?
> > If the killer was behind Nicole when he cut her throat and Nicole was lying
> > on the ground at the time, then why would the killer have blood all over him?
>
> Nicole suffered numerous stab wounds.
ok, that's it. This guy hasn't a clue......
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
Ted Bell,
Once again you show us you do not know the facts. The evidence tells us that Nicole
was knocked unconscious before Simpson killed Goldman. Simpson was behind Goldman
during their struggle, holding him around his neck with left arm and stabbing him over
thirty times with his right. The blue black cotton fibers found all over the back of
Goldman's shirt tell us that, as well as his wounds. The same blue black cotton fibers
were found on Simpson's right hand glove, and on his socks.
After killing Goldman Simpson returned to Nicole, put one foot on her back, pulled her
head up by her hair and cut her throat. Her blood did not get on him. Yes, it is
likely that Simpson returned to Goldman to try and find his hat and glove that were
pulled off in Ron's struggle for his life. But Simpson was running out of time and he
was never able to find them. Both had fallen under a plant, in a dark area. When
Simpson did leave, he left his bloody shoe prints. The shoe prints between the lower
and upper stairs on the walkway that some say looks like Simpson turned around, was
given a different explanation by Bodziak. He explained that Simpson could have stopped
next to the house and looked towards the front entrance by stepping out and then back
again before proceeding down the down the walkway to the rear gate.
Sorry but you think wrong. The murders were committed after 10:30. About five minutes
after the murders, Robert Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from the crime
scene. Unless Jason was driving that Bronco and bleeding Simpson's blood your entire
belief is proven incorrect.
bobaugust
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
Ted Bell,
Yes there is evidence that the lights were not on. When the bodies were found
there were no lights on. It was dark on the walkway. In fact the first people who
saw Nicole, never saw Goldman. There is absolutely no evidence that the killer
went into Nicole's house after the murders.
Jon Beaver
That's right. Nobody perceives truth directly. You just have to get
as much evidence as you can before you make your SWAG (Scientific
Wild-Ass Guess.) All I can criticize you for is trying to make your
SWAG before you have to. Now, tell me again why you have to make your
SWAG about the California energy crisis and O. J. Simpson?
- Jon Beaver
MIRSE
>Message-id: <vbtfitctutgmn0aq3...@4ax.com>
That's right. Nobody perceives truth directly. You just have to get
as much evidence as you can before you make your SWAG (Scientific
Wild-Ass Guess.) All I can criticize you for is trying to make your
SWAG before you have to. Now, tell me again why you have to make your
SWAG about the California energy crisis and O. J. Simpson?
- Jon Beaver
**********
Speaking about illogical thinking, if a person believes that if, for
instance, Fuhrman's blood is mixed with Simpson's blood, and then Fuhrman's DNA
will turn into Simpson's DNA, such a person is not logical.
1. But that is what the jury in the criminal trial concluded, and they
obviously were illogical.
2. The jury concluded that if the blood collected from Nicole's walkway was
accidentally or on purpose mixed with Simpson's blood, then the blood from
Nicole's walkway could have turned into Simpson's blood.
3. But as we now know, 7 years after the murders in 1994, such a belief about
DNA is not only illogical, it is absurd.
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>Message-id: <vbtfitctutgmn0aq3...@4ax.com>
That's right. Nobody perceives truth directly. You just have to get
as much evidence as you can before you make your SWAG (Scientific
Wild-Ass Guess.) All I can criticize you for is trying to make your
SWAG before you have to. Now, tell me again why you have to make your
SWAG about the California energy crisis and O. J. Simpson?
- Jon Beaver
*******
Well, you were talking about people's different leaps of logic, that is, you
seem to say that one person's leap of logic is as good as another person's
leap of logic.
1. Well, my leap of logic is that the California energy crisis was caused
solely by California elected officials and the people who elected them.
2. Further, it seems "logical" to me that it is wrong for people in California
to expect the rest of the country to pay for California's mistakes.
3. As you said in an earlier message, everyone has his right to his leap in
logic.
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
Ted Bell,
Yes there is evidence that the lights were not on. When the bodies were found
there were no lights on. It was dark on the walkway. In fact the first people
who
saw Nicole, never saw Goldman. There is absolutely no evidence that the killer
went into Nicole's house after the murders.
Sorry but you think wrong. The murders were committed after 10:30. About five
minutes after the murders, Robert Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from
the crime scene. Unless Jason was driving that Bronco and bleeding Simpson's
blood
your entire belief is proven incorrect.
bobaugust
*********
bob: As you know, you and I disagree on many points about the Simpson case.
1. Still, try not to be too hard on this newcomer to this newsgroup. I think it
is obvious that he didn't see most of the criminal trial and that he has not
studied the criminal and civil trial transcripts.
2. What is sad, however, is that many other people who read this new book by
William Dear also don't know a lot about the Simpson case, and they too have
come to believe in Dear's Jason-did-it-theory.
3. I mean, Dear writes that, yes, that is O.J. Simpson's blood, gloves, and
cap found at the murder scene, but O.J. Simpson had nothing to do with the
murders! How bizarre.
4. And Jason Simpson, according to Dear's theory, is so evil and calculating,
that he is able to secretly steal O.J.'s Bruno Maglis shoes and plan to butcher
Nicole, but, according to author Dear, Jason suddenly is remorseful minutes
after murdering two people and calls his father O.J., presumably from a pay
phone, to tell O.J. what a terrible thing he just did! Unbelievable.
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>Date: 6/13/01 3:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ab16560d.0106...@posting.google.com>
My theory is that OJ was as careful as he could be to not leave fingerprints
or
footprints when he was at Bundy. But, whether because there wasn't a lot of
light,
or because of his own haste or his shock at what he was discovering, he did
leave
some evidence of his having been there. He picked up some traces of the
victims'
blood, and these are the droplets that were later found in his Bronco. The
unidentified shoeprint that Dear refers to (which posters here dispute) may
have
been left by OJ.
********
Bell:
1. What I am saying is this: If a person steps in a liquid such as blood, how
does that person leave only ONE bloody footprint after exiting that liquid?
Wouldn't he have to leave more than one bloody footprint?
2. Did you ever find out how far from the bodies that bloody footprint was
found?
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>Date: 6/13/01 8:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B27FF87...@lvcm.com>
next to the house and looked towards the front entrance by stepping out and
then back
again before proceeding down the down the walkway to the rear gate.
Sorry but you think wrong. The murders were committed after 10:30. About five
minutes
after the murders, Robert Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from the
crime
scene. Unless Jason was driving that Bronco and bleeding Simpson's blood your
entire
belief is proven incorrect.
bobaugust
*********
Bob: Maybe Bell should check out wagnerandson.com., Wagner's website about the
Simpson case.
I disagree with Wagner's theory of the Simpson case, but Wagner, to me,
certainly has a clear explanation and drawings as to how the killer might have
cut Nicole's throat. Mi...@aol.com
Bob August
MIRSE wrote:
Mirse, I agree. It is clear that only a person who is not aware of the facts and
evidence in this case, could believe the fantasy that Jason Simpson was the killer.
bobaugust
Bob August
MIRSE wrote:
Mirse, I disagree. Everything I have read of Wagner's explanations about the
killings do not make any sense. Wagner always creates his explanations to try and
support his fantasy theory. I am not sure what you agree with him on or find
credible. As far as I recall, Wagner wants us to believe that Nicole's throat was
cut while she was kneeling on the stairs, and then her body was intentionally
repositioned by the killer, as it was found. Do you agree with that?
bobaugust
Ted Bell
> Why would the killer *have* to be covered in
> blood? Simpson cut Nicole's throat from behind, that would cause very little,
> if any blood to be on his person; Ron bled down himself,his leg mostly, and the
> bleeding that caused his death was internal. So, again, why would the killer
> *have* to be covered in blood?
It just makes more sense, to me anyway. The killer slashed two people to death
in a small, enclosed area. Ron put up a fight and did some damage to his attacker,
judging by his bruised knuckles. Although Nicole's throat was slashed from behind
(and Dear agrees with that interpretation, by the way), the killer had to
confront Ron head-on in a fight to the death. Judging from the color photo of
Ron's body, reproduced in Dear's book, there was plenty of blood shed.
> Lee also stated on a talk show, just the other
> day, that there were bloody size 10 footprints also found at the Bundy crime
> scene; a blatant lie that nobody in the auidience seemed to notice, I was
> amazed. It's hard for me to believe Lee is considered such an *expert* in
> forensic science; I saw him misrepresent every piece of evidence he talked
> about on this show the other day, as well as tell the outright lie about a size
> 10 bloody shoe print.
Good point, though he was talking about a seven-year-old case, and he may
have just misspoken about the size of the shoe prints. He should have known
better, though.
> >Those Bruno Maglis were bloody enough to leave a lot of bloody footprints.
> >If that person was OJ, why were there *only a few tiny traces of blood* in
> >his Bronco? There was *no* blood on the gas pedal, and *no* blood on the
> >brake pedal, and only a few little drops inside the cab here and there.
>
> Perhaps Simpson walked through some grass,outside the fence, as he went to his
> Bronco, intentionally or unintentionally wiping most of the blood off the
> bottom of his shoes? I'd guess that would be an intentional move, but that's
> just my guess.
That's not unreasonable, but when OJ went to Bundy that night, he
probably chose to park in the alleyway behind Nicole's condo, where
he'd be less likely to be observed by passersby. There's no grass back there.
> >Those Bruno Maglis
> >were bloody enough to leave a lot of bloody footprints. If that person was
> >OJ, why were there *only a few tiny traces of blood* in his Bronco?
>
> If that person were not Simpson, then why ANY blood in the Bronco at all? If
> you'll also recall, there was the faint imprint, in blood, in the Bronco, of
> the Bruno Magli shoe, the same as was found at the scene.
That's not necessarily true, if we're to believe Vincent Bugliosi. He wrote:
"Bodziak's actual testimony wasn't nearly as strong as Clark suggested...
He told me, in fat, that not only couldn't he identify the bloody imprint on the
driver's carpet as coming from the sole or heel of a Bruno Magli shoe, he
couldn't even identify it as an imprint from a shoe sole or heel."
("Outrage," page 431)
> I am curious, does Dear make any mention of what Jason Simpson's motives may
> have been in killing Nicole? And I really can't imagine anyone committing this
> crime, and running to call anyone to tell them about it, that makes no sense.
Dear devotes a big part of his argument to the issue of motive in the slayings.
OJ had no real motive for killing Nicole. Jason, though, did have a motive for
confronting Nicole on that particular night: a confrontation that may have
escalated to murder, and then to double-murder when Ron Goldman appeared on the
scene to return the glasses.
Here are some excerpts from Dear's book, in which he summarizes some of his
main points (pages 329-339). The book goes into each of these items in some
detail:
"OJ may have hated Nicole enough to say that he wanted to kill her, but he
always went out of his way to protect and love his children. A loving father is
not likely to have killed the mother of his children while those children were
a few yards away-- especially when those children could have been up watching
television on a summer night. OJ was aware that his daughter Sydney was to have
a friend over for a sleepover that night."
"A premeditated murderer does not select a busy street like Bundy Drive to
ambush his ex-wife."
"OJ hired Carl Jones, the criminal attorney, to represent his son Jason the
day after the murders, prior to OJ's arrest in the murder case. Why?"
"Jason was treated at the UCLA Neuro-Psychiatric Institute for a mental
condition, later being diagnosed as "Intermittent Rage Disorder" accompanied
by seizures. He was prescribed Depakote, a drug frequently prescribed to
individuals suffering from *rage*.
"Jason, in a fit of rage, assaulted his girlfriend Jackie wherein he nearly
breaks her back by throwing her into an empty bathtub."
"Jason attacked his girlfriend Jackie with a chef's knife and cut off her
hair."
"Jason attempted suicide by cutting his wrists with a shard of broken glass."
"Jason was arrested for assaulting his former employer, Paul Goldberg, with
a kitchen knife. At the time of the murders, Jason was still on probation for
this earlier offense on Paul Goldberg."
"Just prior to the murders, Jason felt he was "going to rage," and checked
into Cedars Sinai Hospital."
"Two months prior to the murders Jason, in a blind rage, assaulted his
girlfrind, Jennifer Green, at his birthday party. Later that night, according to
an article, he tried to strangle her."
"Two months prior to the murders, Jason was known to have stopped taking his
Depakote because, as he was reported to have said, 'It's fucking with my head.'"
"On the night of the murders, Nicole had arranged to eat at Jackson's Restaurant,
where Jason was the chef, but she failed to show up."
"Jason had no alibi after 10:00 pm, once he left Jackson's Restaurant and dropped
off his girlfriend Jennifer Green, other than his claim that he was alone at his
apartment watching television until after 3:00 am."
"Jason had in his possession a set of chef knives when he left Jackson's
restaurant at approximately 9:45pm on the night of the murders."
"Jason was allegedly upset that Nicole and her party did not come to Jackson's
as arranged on the night of June 12, 1994."
"Jason's blood chemistry is supposed to have similar genetic characteristics as
OJ's."
"OJ and Jason have approximately the same size feet. Jason also had access to OJ's
clothes closet and is known to have taken items of clothing from his dad at will."
"Jason's psychiatrist shredded all of Jason's (psychiatric) records after
the murders."
"Jason was never interviewed by any of the Los Angeles Police Law Enforcement
Agencies nor by the Prosecutor's Office."
"Jason bolted from the funeral home, visibly upset, at the time of Nicole
Simpson's funeral, not wanting to view Nicole's body."
One more item isn't discussed in the text of the book, but rather in the photo
section. It's a news photo of the inside of the courtroom the day the jury's
not-guilty verdict was announced. The photo shows the Simpson family's reactions
as the verdicts are announced. All of them have jubilant, joyful expressions on
their faces... except one person, whose expression can only be called a scowl:
Jason Simpson.
Ted Bell
What's important is to keep an open mind. I'm well aware of the
circumstantial evidence against OJ. For over six years, I was sure he
must have been the guilty party.
That was before I learned what I know now about Jason. After reading
about the evidence that Dear turned up in his six-year investigation, now I'm
not so sure that OJ really did it. That's why I started this thread: to see
if anyone here can share something that would eliminate Jason as a suspect
...which would again leave OJ as the most likely suspect.
("Can Anyone Prove Jason Didn't Do It?" So far, I guess the answer is "no.")
But it's interesting to see how many people here are blasting Dear's book
without having even read it.
Ted Bell
> Sorry but you think wrong. The murders were committed after 10:30.
Can you be certain? Even Vincent Bugliosi, who's as anti-OJ as he can be,
writes, "We can conclude that the murders took place somewhere between 10:15 and
10:40 pm." ("Outrage," page 130)
> About five minutes
> after the murders Robert Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from the crime
> scene.
Bugliosi sheds better light on this:
"...it was Cochran, *not* the prosecutors, who put on the only witness (Robert
Heidstra) who testified to seeing a white utility vehicle, which he said could
have been a Ford Bronco, rapidly leaving the crime scene area. Cochran did get
in return the witness's testimony that he heard Nicole's Akita dog barking at
around 10:35 pm, twenty minutes later than a host of prosecution witnesses did,
but he admitted he wasn't sure of the time. In fact, Heidstra conceded on cross-
examination that he normally started walking his dog every evening around 10 pm,
which if he had done so on the night of the murders, would have put his hearing
of the Akita barking at around 10:15 pm, the same time the prosecution witnesses
heard the Akita." (pages 324-325)
confused
>mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote...
>> tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell) wrote:
>>
>> > I've heard a lot about why you think OJ committed the murders. What I'm still
>> >waiting to hear about is evidence that proves Jason had no role whatsoever.
>>
>> > Is there any?
>>
>> What evidence is there that YOU had no role whatsoever? That is the
>> beauty of our system. The state has to prove guilt.
>>
>> Why is it so important that simpson didn't do this?
> What's important is to keep an open mind.
Attempting to twist evidence to point somewhere else isn't "keeping
an open mind."
>That was before I learned what I know now about Jason. After reading
>about the evidence that Dear turned up in his six-year investigation, now I'm
>not so sure that OJ really did it.
Have you attempted to verify the information Dear presents? Jason
was checked out. His DNA is only slightly closer to simpsons than
your is. He wasn't speaking to his girlfriend at the time.
>if anyone here can share something that would eliminate Jason as a suspect
>...which would again leave OJ as the most likely suspect.
What about the fact that there isn't any direct evidence linking
Jason to the murders.
> ("Can Anyone Prove Jason Didn't Do It?" So far, I guess the answer is "no.")
What evidence is there that YOU had no role whatsoever? So far, I
guess the answer is "no".
>But it's interesting to see how many people here are blasting Dear's book
>without having even read it.
I don't need to open a smut magazine to know it is something to
blast. Why should I have to read the trash that Dear is proposing?
MIRSE
>Date: 6/14/01 2:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
> Sorry but you think wrong. The murders were committed after 10:30.
Can you be certain? Even Vincent Bugliosi, who's as anti-OJ as he can be,
writes, "We can conclude that the murders took place somewhere between 10:15
and
10:40 pm." ("Outrage," page 130)
*********
The problem is that the more we analyze author Dear's theory that Jason did
it, the more holes we see in the theory.
For instance, take the time period you mention above.
1. If the murders occurred BEFORE 10:30 p.m., which would have given Jason time
to call his father and given O.J. time to drive over to Nicole's and return
home, according to what author Dear wrote, then what does that do to the crazy
barking of the Akita, which Heidstra said occurred AFTER 10:30 p.m., and whose
testimony the lady with the watches---who lived down the street from Nicole---
seemed to verify? That is, who is the Akita barking at, according to Dear's
Jason did it theory?
2. As I said, it just seems that if someone wants to believe Dear's
Jason-did-it-theory, then he will have a difficult time fitting everything we
know about the case into the theory in order to have the theory believable, as
I see it.
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>Message-id: <3B284EE2...@lvcm.com
Subject: Re: Can Anyone Prove Jason DIDN'T Do It?
From: Bob August boba...@lvcm.com
Date: 6/14/01 1:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <3B284EE2...@lvcm.com>
MIRSE wrote:
bobaugust
***********
bob: I'm not sure at the moment of all of Wagner's theory as to where Nicole's
head was when her throat was cut.
1. But I do believe that the large blood spot on that first step means that
Nicole's head was on the step when the killer lifted it to cut her throat.
2. I thought Wagner's color diagram/pictures at his website came close to what
I think happened to Nicole as her throat was cut, that is, I believe that
Nicole's head was lying on or just above the first step when her throat was
cut.
3. Even if poster Bell or anyone else does not agree with Wagner's graphics,
I think Wagner's graphics were pretty good as a starting point for anyone who
was trying to analyze how Nicole's throat was cut.
4. When I get a chance, I'll go back and take a look at Wagner's graphics.
5. As I recall, the last time I looked at them, I was impressed by the obvious
time Wagner put into the graphics to try to help us understand better how
Nicole's throat may have been cut. To me, a person doesn't have to agree with
Wagner's theories to appreciate the time Wagner put into planning and drawing
up the graphics.
6. Myself, I find Wagner's theory of a mysterious I believe "Gus" being
involved in the murder and of Simpson coming to the murder scene AFTER the
murders were committed as strange as the new theory presented by William Dear
in his new book, a book in which he presents his Jason-did-it-theory.
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
cut while she was kneeling on the stairs, and then her body was intentionally
repositioned by the killer, as it was found. Do you agree with that?
bobaugust
**********
Bob: Yes, I agree with that. The large bloodstain on the first step tells me
that Nicole's head must have been on that first step when her throat was cut.
And, to me, Nicole's legs could not have slid under such a narrow opening
under the fence without someone forcing the legs and feet under the fence.
Try this experiment:
1. Find someone about Nicole's size---boy or girl.
2. If you have front steps or steps in your house, have the person lie at the
foot of the steps like we see Nicole lying on the ground.
3. Try to pull the person's hair and head back far enough so that if you cut
the person's throat, the blood would leave most of its stain in the middle of
the step, like it was on Nicole's first step.
4. I think you will have a hard time pulling the person's head back that far,
because the back and head won't bend that far.
5. But then try this: Have the person lie perpendicular to the front steps, as
if Nicole's feet were pointing out the front gate.
6. I think you will see that it will be much easier to cut the person's throat
so that the majority of the blood will fall in the middle of the step, which is
where the blood was on the first step of Nicole's home.
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>Date: 6/14/01 2:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
about the evidence that Dear turned up in his six-year investigation, now I'm
not so sure that OJ really did it. That's why I started this thread: to see
if anyone here can share something that would eliminate Jason as a suspect
...which would again leave OJ as the most likely suspect.
("Can Anyone Prove Jason Didn't Do It?" So far, I guess the answer is "no.")
But it's interesting to see how many people here are blasting Dear's book
without having even read it.
********
1. I haven't read the book, but there have been several reviews about the book
that can give us a good idea what Dear's theory is and how he arrived at his
theory.
2. I mean , one doesn't have to read Dear's book to know that Dear theorizes
that Jason was the murderer and Simpson took the blame to protect his older
son.
3. Did you see the recent interview of Shipp by newtimesla.com by Ortega
that I posted?
4. Shipp, a former Simpson police officer friend who testified at the criminal
trial and who is mentioned in the book, blasts Dear for his inaccuracies and
for twisting his interview with Shipp. Shipp was pretty angry at Dear.
Mi...@aol.com
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
Ted Bell, I am not blasting Dear's book. What I am doing is pointing out where you are
factually wrong. Your opinions are based on misinformation. If the information you are
using was written by Dear, than he is factually wrong.
bobaugust
Bob August
Ted Bell wrote:
Ted Bell, once again you are factually incorrect. You really should read Heidstra's
testimony your self so you can offer an intelligent conclusion.
I will help you out.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8073/robert.htm
If you take the time to understand what the witnesses testified to, you will find that
Heidstra was a defense witness in the criminal trial used to show that the prosecution
had the wrong time of the murders. The defense was correct about that. Heidstra was a
key plaintiff witness in the civil trial establishing the time of death after 10:30
when he testified about hearing Goldman's voice when Goldman arrived at South Bundy.
About five minutes before he saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from the crime scene.
bobaugust
Bob August
MIRSE wrote:
Mirse, Nicole's legs may very well have been jammed under the gate when she was
dropped to the walkway after her throat was cut. But I do not agree that Nicole was
kneeling on the step or that she was intentionally repositioned after she was
killed as Wagner wants us to believe.
bobaugust
John Griffin
"Ted Bell" <tedsofb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com...
> mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote...
> > tedsofb...@hotmail.com (Ted Bell) wrote:
> >
> > > I've heard a lot about why you think OJ committed the murders. What
I'm still
> > >waiting to hear about is evidence that proves Jason had no role
whatsoever.
> >
> > > Is there any?
> >
> > What evidence is there that YOU had no role whatsoever? That is the
> > beauty of our system. The state has to prove guilt.
> >
> > Why is it so important that simpson didn't do this?
>
>
>
> What's important is to keep an open mind. I'm well aware of the
> circumstantial evidence against OJ. For over six years, I was sure he
> must have been the guilty party.
>
> That was before I learned what I know now about Jason. After reading
> about the evidence that Dear turned up in his six-year investigation, now
I'm
> not so sure that OJ really did it. That's why I started this thread: to
see
> if anyone here can share something that would eliminate Jason as a suspect
> ...which would again leave OJ as the most likely suspect.
Imagine that! The guy who's implicated by 100.00% of the evidence becomes
the most likely suspect, and you can take credit for bringing that fact into
the open...
> ("Can Anyone Prove Jason Didn't Do It?" So far, I guess the answer is
"no.")
You "guess the answer is no," but you haven't shown any reason for anyone
to believe that you could tell the difference.
> But it's interesting to see how many people here are blasting Dear's
book
> without having even read it.
If that concerns you, try to post some excerpts from the non-idiotic parts
of it.
It's just a simpleminded fiction, meant to extract a few bucks from the
booboise.
Brooke Mayne
je
step off into the grass and go out the front.
It is more unusual to find so many footprints.
I'm not sure but I would think that all you would have to do is
scuff/slide your feet and just get smears instead of prints.
No one but an idiot would leave so many prints of a rare shoe.
Jean
On to 2002!!!
Thomas P. Jabine
>>
>> > **********
>> > This is Mirse. The reason I ask you about Shipp is this: Did you see an
>> > interview in newtimesla.com concerning author William Dear and Shipp?
For anyone who doesn't care to blow any money on the book, the article
Mirse refers to provides a good summary of the issues involved, and in
my view, effectively rebuts Dear while giving a fair exposition of his
views. The full URL is:
http://newtimesla.com/issues/2001-05-24/feature.html/page1.html
je
They were both old enought to talk.
Now both OJ and Jason knew the kids were in the house and just might
wake up with dogs barking.
Who ever did the killing, either did not know the kids were there or
knew that they were knocked out by somekind of meds.
Now since neither OJ or Jason had seen them for at least 3 hours, they
could not have doped up the kids. So neither of them could have been the
killers.
No way OJ is going to deliberately kill Nicole with the possibility of
his kids seeing him and it had to be deliberate if he had on gloves,
winter shoes, and a hat.
If Jason killed them, no way is he going to leave the kids for them to
find the bodies.
Jean
On to 2002!!!
je
Jason takes his girlfriend home and decideds to go kill Nicole or maybe
he was just going to argue with her.
He drives over to her house and gets in an arugument, then goes to his
car where his work knives are and chooses one and comes back and cuts
her throat.
Then Ron comes along and he fights him off and kills him.
He goes home and calls OJ and said "I just kllled Nicole and some other
guy"
So OJ calmly thinks "I better wear dark clothes and these winter shoes,
gloves and a hat," which he changes into All the time not knowing if
his kids have woken up and found the bodies. Or if the police have been
called and would arrive when he is walking around in his disquise.
So he jumps in his Bronco and drives over and walks all over the place.
Seeing no kids screaming and crying he then leaves hoping that they will
not wake up before the police come. He mangages to drop a glove which he
has gotten bloody checked their pulse to see if they are dead. Not to
easy to do with a leather glove. He drops his hat when he bends over.
Then he gets in his car and rushes home, almost wrecking by running a
red light.
Then he decides I better get rid of these clothes, shoes and glove. So
when he sees the limo driver he parks on Rockingham and then jumps over
the Salanger fense dropping a glove and running into Kato's AC.
Then he runs back to the Bronco and his finger starts bleeding again
that he cut at Bundy and he leaves a trail to his frount door. In the
meantime he also gets a small bag and stuffs his extra large sweat suit
and shoes in it and drops it behind his Bently, all the while not
knowing if Park is watching all this coming and going. Now he must be
in his underware, so how did Park see him in the dark suit going into
the house?
Perhaps he went into the house in the suit and shoes and teleported them
into that bag. They must have been there. because the police swarm all
over the house and could not find one. Of couse Fuhrman said he saw one
in the washer. But it must have magically disappeared before the other
cops looked in the machine and found Arnells under wear.
Or perhaps he called AC and said "I need a favor, Jason just killed
Nicole and some other guy and I went over and looked around and get rid
of the shoes and suit, oh the kids must be OK, Jason said he didn't see
them and I didn't, they may not wake up and find their mom buthered. no
big deal. And if I got any blood in the house clean it up so luminal
won't even show it up.
Will it can get sillier and sillier. There is no way with common sense
that Jason kiled Nicole and OJ went over to check it out.
Jean
On to 2002!!!
MIRSE
>Date: 6/14/01 12:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <17369-3B...@storefull-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
of the shoes and suit, oh the kids must be OK, Jason said he didn't see
them and I didn't, they may not wake up and find their mom buthered. no
big deal. And if I got any blood in the house clean it up so luminal
won't even show it up.
Will it can get sillier and sillier. There is no way with common sense
that Jason kiled Nicole and OJ went over to check it out.
Jean
On to 2002!!!
*********
Life can be so amazing sometimes.
1. As many of the regulars here know, I often find Jean's projay arguments
unbelievable.
2. So, when I read Jean's message above where she makes fun of William Dear's
Jason-did-it theory, I am lost for words.
3. A message to author William Dear: If Jean here finds your Jason-did-it
theory laughable---Jean, who is one of the more avid and vocal Simpson projays
in this group, and who many nojays find a little strange---then your
Jason-did-it theory is in big trouble.
4. I mean, if you, William Dear, can't convince Jean, the very vocal Simpson
projay, then what chance do you have in convincing other people with your
bizarre theory that Jason is the one who butchered Nicole and Goldman?
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>Message-id: <17370-3B...@storefull-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Subject: Re: Can Anyone Prove Jason DIDN'T Do It?
From: lib...@webtv.net (je)
Date: 6/14/01 11:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <17370-3B...@storefull-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
It is not ususual just to find one footprint at the crime scene. You
step off into the grass and go out the front.
It is more unusual to find so many footprints.
**********
I don't understand your statement above. 1. Who said the single non-Bruno
Magli shoeprint you are talking about was in the front area?
2. Do you know for sure where that footprint was?
3. I thought it was on the walkway leading to the backgate.
4. So, again, could you explain further why you say the single bloody
non-Bruno Magli footprint was in the front area?
5. Could you also please tell us the exact location where you believe that
bloody non-Bruno Magli shoeprint was?
Mi...@aol.com
MIRSE
>Date: 6/14/01 4:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B287688...@lvcm.com>
> where the blood was on the first step of Nicole's home.
> Mi...@aol.com
Mirse, Nicole's legs may very well have been jammed under the gate when she was
dropped to the walkway after her throat was cut. But I do not agree that Nicole
was
kneeling on the step or that she was intentionally repositioned after she was
killed as Wagner wants us to believe.
bobaugust
*******
bob: At least we both agree that it would have been very difficult for Nicole's
feet to end up under the fence unless someone purposely jammed the feet under
that fence.
1. Myself, I believe that the space under the fence was too narrow for
Nicole's feet to have traveled so far under that fence when she was first
knocked to the ground.
2. But why did the killer take the time to jam those feet under the fence?
3. My theory is that the killer did so in order to close the gate.
4. As you know, the space between the steps and the front gate is only about 3
feet. If Nicole's feet extended beyond the front gate after her throat was slit
and she lay motionless on the ground, then the killer could not have closed the
gate.
5. And if the gate was left open, then there was the chance that someone
walking by would accidentally see Nicole's body.
6. And, of course, there is the Akita.
7. If the gate was left open, then the Akita could have run out the front gate
to Bundy, where there was the chance that it would have been spotted and picked
up by someone before the killer had a chance to make a clean getaway.
8. So, as I see it, the killer pushed Nicole's feet under the fence so he could
close the front gate. Mi...@aol.com
Kristin VanAllen
Ted Bell wrote:
> portc...@aol.com (Portctygirl) wrote...
>
> > Why would the killer *have* to be covered in
> > blood? Simpson cut Nicole's throat from behind, that would cause very little,
> > if any blood to be on his person; Ron bled down himself,his leg mostly, and the
> > bleeding that caused his death was internal. So, again, why would the killer
> > *have* to be covered in blood?
>
> It just makes more sense, to me anyway. The killer slashed two people to death
> in a small, enclosed area. Ron put up a fight and did some damage to his attacker,
> judging by his bruised knuckles. Although Nicole's throat was slashed from behind
> (and Dear agrees with that interpretation, by the way), the killer had to
> confront Ron head-on in a fight to the death. Judging from the color photo of
> Ron's body, reproduced in Dear's book, there was plenty of blood shed.
but none that would "cover" the killer in blood. Even if the killer hugged Ron, the blood
would be on the front of the killer in a manner that would be absorbed and would not get
all over the seat.
If the killer were "dripping" in blood, then the victim's blood would be dripped on the
sidewalk as the killer left - that did not oocur, so it is clear the killer was not
"dripping" in blood.
How would the killer's back side become "covered" in blood?
where did you think that blood dpot came from? The photo of it clearly showed a pattern
in the carpet.
>
>
> > I am curious, does Dear make any mention of what Jason Simpson's motives may
> > have been in killing Nicole? And I really can't imagine anyone committing this
> > crime, and running to call anyone to tell them about it, that makes no sense.
>
> Dear devotes a big part of his argument to the issue of motive in the slayings.
> OJ had no real motive for killing Nicole. Jason, though, did have a motive for
> confronting Nicole on that particular night: a confrontation that may have
> escalated to murder, and then to double-murder when Ron Goldman appeared on the
> scene to return the glasses.
that she did not go to the restaurant he worked at??? Come on....
>
>
> Here are some excerpts from Dear's book, in which he summarizes some of his
> main points (pages 329-339). The book goes into each of these items in some
> detail:
>
> "OJ may have hated Nicole enough to say that he wanted to kill her, but he
> always went out of his way to protect and love his children. A loving father is
> not likely to have killed the mother of his children while those children were
> a few yards away-- especially when those children could have been up watching
> television on a summer night. OJ was aware that his daughter Sydney was to have
> a friend over for a sleepover that night."
it is not uncommon for a husband to kill the mom in FRONT of the kids.....
>
>
> "A premeditated murderer does not select a busy street like Bundy Drive to
> ambush his ex-wife."
bundy is not all that busy at 10:30 at night.
>
>
> "OJ hired Carl Jones, the criminal attorney, to represent his son Jason the
> day after the murders, prior to OJ's arrest in the murder case. Why?"
maybe OJ said something to jason
And kardashian's look. maybe the scowl was Jason knew Oj did it.
The list of Oj's abuse is about as big......
Bob August
je wrote:
Funny Jean. Idiot Simpson did.
Bob August
je wrote:
Wow, are you screwed up. By the way Simpson's dark sweat suit was seen and
video taped in his washing machine. The sweat suit and the washing machine
were examined at the time for blood by Fung. No blood was found and the
washed clothing was not collected.
bobaugust
Bob August
je wrote:
Wow, are you screwed up. Both of Simpson's kids slept through out the
murders. They did not hear anything.
Bob August
MIRSE wrote:
No Mirse, I do not agree that Nicole's feet were purposely jammed under the gate.
You have misunderstood what I said. I said that her feet might have been jammed
under the gate when Simpson dropped her after cutting her throat, or just before or
during the time he cut her throat. I do not believe that her feet were jammed on
purpose.
I do not understand the rest of your speculation.
bobaugust
Ted Bell
> Have you attempted to verify the information Dear presents? Jason
> was checked out.
No, he wasn't. He was never interviewed by the police or by the DA's office.
He submitted no blood or hair samples because he was never asked for any.
Why? Evidently, word got around early on that Jason had an airtight alibi
for that night. (As Darden said on "Larry King" in June 2000, "There were no
other suspects. Jason and AC Cowlings both had alibis, quite frankly.") Dear
went out to verify that alibi, and discovered it extended only as late as 9:45
to 10:00 on the night of the murders. After that point, Jason's actions and
whereabouts are unknown.
> His DNA is only slightly closer to simpsons than
> your is.
The blood drops that were shown to be a close match with OJ's blood represent
some of the best evidence against OJ. But Jason's blood may have been an even
closer match than his father's. Note that I said *may*. We don't know for sure
because Jason's blood hasn't been subjected to a comparison test. Until that
happens, I don't know how closely Jason's blood matches those samples, and
neither do you.
>He wasn't speaking to his girlfriend at the time.
Absolutely untrue. Jason said in his civil-trial deposition that she picked
him up at the restaurant that night. Karl Fernandez, a waiter on duty there that
night, confirms this. And if that isn't enough proof, Jennifer Green herself
confirmed it to Dear.
> >But it's interesting to see how many people here are blasting Dear's book
> >without having even read it.
>
> I don't need to open a smut magazine to know it is something to
> blast. Why should I have to read the trash that Dear is proposing?
Maybe then you'd know what Dear's arguments are. No offense, but if you
dismiss the book's content without even having read it, then you simply don't
know what you're talking about.
Robert H. Risch
Jabine) wrote:
>For anyone who doesn't care to blow any money on the book, the article
>Mirse refers to provides a good summary of the issues involved, and in
>my view, effectively rebuts Dear while giving a fair exposition of his
>views. The full URL is:
>
>http://newtimesla.com/issues/2001-05-24/feature.html/page1.html
Wow! I rarely express rightous indigation against anybody but
lawyers. However, I sure hope Jason sues the crackpot. Dear is worse
than anyone currently posting in this newsgroup.
RHR
Robert H. Risch
wrote:
>> His DNA is only slightly closer to simpsons than
>> your is.
>
> The blood drops that were shown to be a close match with OJ's blood represent
>some of the best evidence against OJ. But Jason's blood may have been an even
>closer match than his father's. Note that I said *may*. We don't know for sure
>because Jason's blood hasn't been subjected to a comparison test. Until that
>happens, I don't know how closely Jason's blood matches those samples, and
>neither do you.
The last straw! Plonk!!! Arogant cretins aren't all that funny.
Portctygirl
>No one but an idiot would leave so many prints of a rare shoe.
>
>Jean
>On to 2002!!!
There ya have it Jean, you finally said something I agree with!!
Carol
Portctygirl
>Now since neither OJ or Jason had seen them for at least 3 hours, they
>could not have doped up the kids. So neither of them could have been the
>killers.
That's possibly the most illogical *logic* I have ever seen, but it is good
for a laugh!!
>No way OJ is going to deliberately kill Nicole with the possibility of
>his kids seeing him and it had to be deliberate if he had on gloves,
>winter shoes, and a hat.
>
Yes,he did, and yes, it was deliberate.
>If Jason killed them, no way is he going to leave the kids for them to
>find the bodies.
But, as we know, his father not only would, but did. One of the many horrors
of this crime and it's perpetrator.
Carol
Portctygirl
>The blood drops that were shown to be a close match with OJ's blood represent
>some of the best evidence against OJ. But Jason's blood may have been an even
>
>closer match than his father's. Note that I said *may*. We don't know for
>sure
>because Jason's blood hasn't been subjected to a comparison test. Until
>that
>happens, I don't know how closely Jason's blood matches those samples, and
>neither do you.
I haven't read Dear's book, but I'm afraid you're just wrong here. DNA is
unique to each individual, that blood has Orenthal Simpson's DNA. Fathers,
Mothers, sons, daughters, nobody has the same DNA except in some cases of
identical twins. There's no way around it and as far as I know, nobody in this
news group (except one person, that I know of who doesn't understand the
difference between blood type and DNA) has ever disputed the blood was OJ
Simpson's because it was his DNA, which clinches it. There have been all
different kinds of speculation as to how the blood got there, but it was
Simpson's blood, without a doubt.
Carol
Portctygirl
>On 13 Jun 2001 16:59:45 GMT, portc...@aol.com (Portctygirl) wrote:
>
>Nobody has been harsher on Henry Lee than I have Carol. However I
>doubt he ever said that. Using the search engine at the Walraven
>site, the closest I got was the following:
I'm sorry you went to the trouble of looking up testimony and I apologize if
I wasn't clear in my post, but Lee did say that, only it was on a talk show I
saw him appear on just last week.My mouth kept hitting the floor as I watched
him misrepresent evidence to the audience, and once, he outright lied, when he
said there was a "size 10 bloody shoe print leading away from the crime scene."
How he got the reputation for being a *leader* in his field, is totally beyond
me!! Thanks for replying, and I'm sorry again if my post misled you. :)
Carol
MIRSE
>Date: 6/14/01 4:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ab16560d.01061...@posting.google.com>
The blood drops that were shown to be a close match with OJ's blood
represent
some of the best evidence against OJ. But Jason's blood may have been an even
closer match than his father's. Note that I said *may*. We don't know for sure
because Jason's blood hasn't been subjected to a comparison test. Until that
happens, I don't know how closely Jason's blood matches those samples, and
neither do you.
**********
Bell: As I understand your statement above, you believe that the DNA in the
blood collected from Nicole's walkway might match Jason's DNA if someone would
just take the time to test Jason's blood, even though DNA tests conducted by
the California Dept. of Justice and Cellmark labs show that the blood from the
walkway matches the DNA of O.J.
1. Following this line of reasoning, do you also think that the DNA from
the blood on Nicole's walkway could also match daughter Arnelle's DNA?
2. And what about the DNA of the two younger children?
3. Do you also think that their DNA would closely match the DNA in the blood
found on Nicole's walkway?
4. Do you really think you have even a basic understanding of DNA?
Mi...@aol.com
Portctygirl
> Yes. I think it was more likely to have been Jason who did the killings,
>but
>that OJ rushed over to investigate before rushing back home again to meet his
>limo driver.
>
This started out making no sense to me, and is just going down from there.
Does it make sense to you, that Simpson would visit the scene of a double
murder, where one of the victims was the mother of his kids, knowing his kids
were in the house, and on top of that, knowing his son committed this act,
rushed home to catch his limo so he could go to Chicago? I don't have to read
Dear's book to say that so far, the assertions I've seen he's made, are untrue
or
just plain ludicrous.
Carol
John Griffin
>
> > Have you attempted to verify the information Dear presents? Jason
> > was checked out.
>
> No, he wasn't. He was never interviewed by the police or by the DA's
office.
> He submitted no blood or hair samples because he was never asked for any.
There was no reason to do that. So the opportunistic moron whose book
you're
promoting has some weird idea that the fact that 100.000000% of the evidence
points to one guy makes the guy's son a suspect...and figures that at least
one
person would take such nonsense seriously...fuckin' brilliant. Are you the
fabled
sucker who's born every minute, or what?
> Why? Evidently, word got around early on that Jason had an airtight
alibi
> for that night. (As Darden said on "Larry King" in June 2000, "There were
no
> other suspects. Jason and AC Cowlings both had alibis, quite frankly.")
Dear
> went out to verify that alibi, and discovered it extended only as late as
9:45
> to 10:00 on the night of the murders. After that point, Jason's actions
and
> whereabouts are unknown.
Since absolutely nothing makes him a suspect, such discovery was overkill.
> > His DNA is only slightly closer to simpsons than
> > your is.
>
> The blood drops that were shown to be a close match with OJ's blood
represent
> some of the best evidence against OJ. But Jason's blood may have been an
even
> closer match than his father's. Note that I said *may*. We don't know for
sure
> because Jason's blood hasn't been subjected to a comparison test. Until
that
> happens, I don't know how closely Jason's blood matches those samples, and
> neither do you.
Suggestion: The next time you want to discuss something, learn as much of
the fundamentals as you possibly can. I'm not saying you didn't do that
here,
but you clearly have no clue about this. Everyone except you (and maybe the
fool whose book you're promoting) knows that his DNA is clearly
distinguishable
from either parent's.
>He wasn't speaking to his girlfriend at the time.
> Absolutely untrue. Jason said in his civil-trial deposition that she
picked
>him up at the restaurant that night. Karl Fernandez, a waiter on duty there
that
>night, confirms this. And if that isn't enough proof, Jennifer Green
herself
>confirmed it to Dear.
B.F.D.
> > >But it's interesting to see how many people here are blasting Dear's
book
> > >without having even read it.
> >
> > I don't need to open a smut magazine to know it is something to
> > blast. Why should I have to read the trash that Dear is proposing?
>
> Maybe then you'd know what Dear's arguments are. No offense, but if you
> dismiss the book's content without even having read it, then you simply
don't
> know what you're talking about.
I and apparently several others here, have noticed that reading it has
some seriously deleterious effects on thought processes. Your promotional
efforts are at least amusing, but the book sounds way dumb.
Bob August
Portctygirl wrote:
According to the article about Bill Dear,
(Jabine originally posted the URL:
http://newtimesla.com/issues/2001-05-24/feature.html/page1.html)
"Admitting that he, too, assumed early on that physical evidence
pointed unequivocally to O.J., Dear says he soon had doubts. He
found it incredible, for example, that O.J. would have killed his
ex-wife knowing that their two young children, Sydney and Justin,
were upstairs and possibly still awake.
That just didn't fit Dear's concept of a father."
Yet Dear then speculates that Jason killed both victims and called Simpson who put
on his gloves and hat and rushed over to South Bundy, only to look around, bleed,
and then leave his two young children, Sydney and Justin upstairs sleeping. Dear
shows us his pro-j mentality. No understanding of the facts and No common sense.
bobaugust