Post by RagnarPost by A***@yahoo.comHe is guilty. I don't understand how much more evidence is needed.
What if the FBI had a file that said they knew (& identified) the dealers in FL who actually killed the wife & her friend?
Wouldn't that make all the junior G men who swore OJ was guilty look like the busy body morons they are?
What if trolls didn't post to 18 year old threads?
What the hell. I'll take the bait.
Why has the FBI not turned this evidence over to the LADA so that the 'actual killers' could be indicted and tried for the murders of Ron and Nicole?
Why would these particular drug dealers have any reason to kill Ron and Nicole?
Why didn't the original investigation into the murders uncover any evidence of the involvement of these drug dealers?
How did these drug dealers commit a double murder and leave absolutely zero physical evidence of their involvement at the crime scene?
Why was OJ Simpson's blood found in multiple places at the crime scene?
Why was a knit cap with hairs consistent with those of OJ Simpson found at the crime scene?
Why was a left hand Aris Isotoner Light leather glove, size extra large, the same type of glove Nicole was proven to have purchased for OJ at Bloomingdale's in 1990, only 200 pairs of which were sold in size extra large that year and which OJ was photographed and videotaped wearing on several occasions between then and the murders found at the crime scene?
Why was a right hand glove of the exact same type, style and size containing the blood of OJ, Ron and Nicole, a long blonde hair consistent with Nicole's and fibers consistent with the carpeting in OJ's Bronco, a rare carpeting used only in the model year of Bronco, found at OJs home?
Why were no Aris Isotoner Lights gloves of the type OJ had been photographed and videotaped wearing found after the murders?
Why were hairs consistent with OJ's found on Ron's shirt?
Why were fibers consistent with a sweatsuit OJ was seen wearing earlier in the evening found on Ron's shirt?
Why were 5 drops of OJ Simpson's blood found on a walkway at the crime scene to the left of a trail of shoeprints leading away from the bodies of Ron and Nicole?
Why was a trail of footprints made by size 12 (Simpson's size) Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes with Silga soles, only 299 pairs of which were ever distributed in the Unites States in size 12, which were sold at Bloomingdale's where Simpson was known to shop and which Simpson was photographed wearing in 1993 independently by two people at a Buffalo Bill's game, found at the crime scene leading away from the bodies of Ron and Nicole?
Why were no Bruno Magli shoes, which OJ was photographed wearing in 1993, found at OJ's house after the murders?
Why were three drops of OJ Simpson's blood found on the rear gate at the crime scene?
Why was blood from OJ, Ron and Nicole found in OJ's Bronco?
Why was a footprint consistent with the Bruno Magli shoes found on the driver's side carpet of OJ's Bronco?
Why was Simpson witnessed driving his Bronco in a hurried and agitated state at the corner of Bundy and San Vicente in the direction from the crime scene to his home around the very same time of the murders?
Why did OJ park his Bronco at an odd angle outside the gate on Rockingham on the night of the murders when he always parked it on Ashford or inside the compound on any other night?
Why was a trail of drops of OJ's blood found at OJ's home leading from the Bronco to the house?
Why was OJ's blood found in the foyer of the house?
Why was Nicole's blood found on a pair of socks in OJ's bedroom?
Why was blood found in the drains of OJ's sink and shower after the murders?
Why did Kato Kaelin hear three thumps on his bedroom wall around the time of the murders directly opposite the walkway where the bloody glove was found at OJ's house?
Why was OJ not seen at Rockingham around the time of the murders but was first seen outside, walking toward the house, at 10:55?
Why did OJ refuse to allow Kaelin to place one of his bags into the car when he was leaving for the airport, a bag that was never seen again?
Why did OJ not ask how Nicole was killed when he was informed of her death by the police?
Why did OJ not ask about the welfare of his children when he was informed of Nicole's death?
Why was blood found on the sheets in the center of the bed where OJ slept in Chicago given that after he received the call about Nicole's death and allegedly broke a glass on which he may or may not have cut his finger he did not return to bed but instead immediately packed and left the hotel?
Why did OJ never deny to Lange and Vannatter that he killed Nicole?
Why did OJ admit to bleeding at his home and in his car on the night of the murders BEFORE he was told that blood was found at his house?
Why did OJ not know how he got a severe cut on one of the fingers on his left hand the night of the murders?
Why did OJ call witnesses who said he had no cuts on his hands on the way to Chicago when he had already admitted that he had at least one cut his hand before he left for Chicago?
Why did OJ have three cuts and seven abrasions on his hands after the murders?
...then I suppose there would be some people who used to frequent this newsgroup that would have to admit that they drew the wrong conclusion from the evidence and would owe OJ an apology. Of course, by the laws of quantum physics it is also possible that every molecule of air could migrate to one corner of a room, momentarily leaving a vacuum in the rest of the room. The probabilities of each of these happening are about the same.
Why is Prien such a tool?
Why is Bob Miller such a cretin?
Why is Jon Beaver incapable of understanding the difference between what actually happens in the real world and what is presented in court?
Why would any rational, semi-rational or even delusional person accept John Junot's theory of the crime?
Why do Kows go moo?
Why were ~Paige and Kattail never seen in the same place at the same time?
Why did M.A. post in all capital letters while riding the Simpson victory train?
Why did Betty finally admit that she knew OJ murdered Ron and Nicole but deserved to get away with it anyway because of years or prior oppression of African Americans?
Why did Jean have such a horrible command of the English language?
How could someone who styled herself as 'Miss Marple' have so little skill at solving a mystery?
Why did a failed paintball referee with a cheating mail order bride who knew nothing about the Simpson case decide to frequent this newsgroup?
The answers to the above questions can be found in the archives of this newsgroup. Have at it.
Ragnar
***@yahoo.com is not a troll; the person posted on topic. Maybe some regard anyone posting anything exculpatory, to be a troll. But that would be irrational.
The points in the above list have been dealt with, but not reaching the conclusions rhetorically implied or wished for by the poster. Taking just a few for now:
**It's remarkable to see Shively listed in any claimed inculpatory list. She not only sold her story to The National Enquirer, she changed her story, and said it was Marcus Allen driving a white Ford Bronco, not OJ. Shively should be stricken from any serious claimed inculpatory list. The prosecution didn't call Shively due to this. Listing it shows trust in her claims, in which case you should believe her that she saw Marcus Allen in a white Bronco, which is exculpatory evidence.
(Pro-guilters should keep in mind the extreme shock OJ would have been in during a police interview, due to the murders, and his shattered sleep, which would cause confused replies. I don't know a human being who could give clear and concise answers after getting that news, barely sleeping, and flying back from Chicago to LA. The comment about not asking about his children is facetious; OJ already knew where his children were by that time.)
**One of the pilots on the flight to Chicago came back and sat in the seat next to OJ for an autograph and a chat. The pilot noted the size of OJ's hands, and admired his Superbowl ring. With that close an observation, the pilot would have seen cuts or bandages, which he did not.
**The socks have no place in an inculpatory list. KNBC TV reporter Tracie Savage proudly broadcast the DNA results of blood on OJ's socks. But . . . the socks hadn't been DNA tested yet. In fact, the socks had not even been sent to Cellmark Labs in Maryland yet for testing. Savage obtained these miraculous time-traveling DNA results before DNA testing, from an LAPD captain she was "involved" with. The captain knew whose blood was on the socks, because the blood was intentionally placed there after the evidence collection. This allowed him to whisper the DNA results to Savage, like magic, prior to DNA testing.
The beauty of this piece of evidence is that it is proof of framing, and it can't be taken back or refuted. You can't retract Savage's TV broadcast, it already aired in 1994. This is a fact. This was a major blow up in the preliminary hearing, in which Savage was subpoenaed to testify and was threatened by Ito to reveal her sources. This is more than evidence, it is proof, that the sock blood was planted. The defense should have chased this fact like mad dogs. Please see "A Problem of Evidence" by Stephen Singular.
-- More evidence that the sock blood was planted: Four criminalists examined the socks after they were collected. Here are their findings:
Fung: No blood
Yamauchi: No blood
Matheson: No blood
Baden: No blood
Yet, sometime after these examinations, a massive dollup of blood the size of a half dollar was found on the socks. It's impossible that one, let alone four, criminalists missed this huge amount of blood.
Since this blood was not on the socks when the four criminalists examined them, then it was placed there after these examinations. You might think the LAPD Crime Lab would have had to be broken into in order to accomplish this.
Yes! The LAPD Crime Lab WAS broken into overnight, in the early days after the evidence collection. This was also part of the preliminary hearing. (This break-in ties in with Dr. Henry Lee's "something wrong" regarding blood swatches, more clear evidence of planting.)
Because people's lives hang by a thread over the integrity of such evidence, including evidence in death penalty cases (making such evidence a determinant of life or death), the crime lab is sacrosanct. Once the seal is broken, which it was, all evidence therein is suspect, because it has all become susceptible to planting and contamination and replacing/switching.
You would not be happy if a lab holding evidence against you, was broken into, yet the judge found no harm/no foul and proceeded with trial with that evidence against you! You would be especially angry if you were innocent of what you were accused of, and could be executed or exonerated based on the evidence in the lab, the lab which was violated.
All of this makes the bloody socks exculpatory, not inculpatory. Exculpatory, because we are way beyond the weak-kneed consolation prize of "they framed a guilty man." The evidence and proof of framing goes far past that point. Taken together with all of the other exculpatory evidence and circumstantial evidence in OJ's favor, the socks are exculpatory.
It's astonishing that pro-guilt people still list the socks as incriminating. They are excluded, thanks to Tracie Savage and her LAPD captain; she unwittingly did OJ a huge service by broadcasting those DNA results before-the-fact, before the socks were ever tested. Pro-guilt people should have all of this down pat, but not a single one has every demonstrated this simple knowledge about the socks. It's a marvel that they are unaware, when this was such a major to-do during the preliminary hearing. It shows pro-guilt people didn't watch the prelim, ignored it, or didn't understand it.
The proof of planting is there; it went on-air on KNBC in 1994, and Ito almost blew a gasket.
Maybe pro-guilt people will stop listing the socks in their "guilt points," as they are unwittingly listing exculpatory evidence every single time they do it, and we know they don't want that.
You can thank Tracie Savage, KNBC, and her police captain, for this proof of planting of blood on the socks. It's a beautiful, simple, clear, iron-clad piece of evidence. It's proof.