O.J. Simpson's search for the real killer takes him to Louisiana.

[bluestateguy]

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=5128727&nav=0RY5

more

O.J. Simpson In Town For Reunion

July 14, 2006 06:45 AM CDT

OJ Simpson is in the Ark-La-Tex this weekend for a family reunion.
Simpson spent many boyhood summers in Caddo Parish at his grandfather's farm.
Today he and his oldest daughter spent time in Greenwood with relatives he hadn't seen in a while.
He told News 12 that it's hard to believe it's been 12 years since his wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman were brutally murdered outside her home in Los Angeles.

[mnhtnbb]

1. I never believed he did it. LAPD blew the investigation when

they took OJ's blood sample out of Parker Center--to the crime scene.
Voila. Reasonable doubt. End of case.

I used to live near Brentwood. I dated a guy who told me he had been taking a date home (within blocks of Nicole's condo) and they were accosted by a guy with a gun in the date's driveway. The guy gave up his wallet and the gunman fled. This was several years before Nicole was murdered.

I always thought it was someone who followed Ron, accosted him, Nicole heard the fight from out back and came out front to see what was going on and got killed, too.

Bloody glove? Planted. Give me a break. The LAPD were notorious for planting evidence.

[earth mom]

3. OJ did it. NO DOUBT in my mind. eom

[rooboy]

5. I think OJ did it, but should not have been found guilty.

If I was on that jury, I'd have thrown out the charge as soon as the evidence of blood sample tampering became apparent. An atrocious breach of public trust.

[soothsayer]

6. Actually, they blew it by not producing more of the evidence that

they had. For example, they found blood on the interior light bulb in OJ's bronco. People who don't want to be seen getting in or out of their cars will unscrew the bulb to be sure it doesn't light up and alert their prey, and that's what OJ did. The prosecution held some evidence back because they thought they had plenty enuff to convict, and didn't want to be seen as piling on too much. 100% chance he did it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

7. I tried to keep an open mind and ended up thinking that he did it

But you are absolutely right that there's no other way a jury could have decided that case. There was simply tons of reasonable doubt virtually everywhere you turned, mainly because the police blew the investigation. And the other problems were the incredible boasts of loud-mouths like Marcia Clark in the early days of the case that never materialized. Also, having the despicable Fuhrman, with a history of violent behavior towards minorities in his past as one of the key witnesses didn't help. Add Detective Philip Vannatter (the one who carried the blood sample) who witnesses claim they heard say that OJ was guilty while he was initially gathering the facts of the case didn't help his image as an impartial police officer merely letting the evidence take him where it took him.

I think OJ did it, but I understand the criminal jury's verdict.

[Stargleamer]

8. as for the "ugly-ass shoes" and the shoe-prints they left. . .

OJ: "I would never wear those ugly-ass shoes".

Yet, there's OJ with a mic in his hand wearing those "ugly-ass" shoes in more than one photo. He lied. The killer wore those shoes when he murdered Nicole and Ron, and the murderer is O.J.

O.J. did it--DNA proves it, extremely rare shoes prove it, photos of Nicole badly beaten by O.J. prove it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

13. Too bad it wasn't available at the criminal trial

as that might have swung the jury. We will never know. But you can't negate reasonable doubt as to some evidence with other evidence of certainty. If just one element of the case such as the custody problems regarding missing blood and the unreliability of the police detectives raises reasonable doubt, that's it, even with what might appear to be conclusive evidence elsewhere. The criminal standard isn't that of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

[LostinVA]

34. That jury would never have found him guilty

Several jury members basically said that on Dateline after the criminal trial. Two of them also said they didn't believe the DNA evidence. Let em explain that statement: they didn't believe IN DNA evidence -- ie it was like Santa Claus... totally made up science.

He was found guilty in the civil suit, but STILL hasn't paid what he was ordered to.

He's rich. Rich and famous people don't go to prison for violent crimes... regardless of race. And, he is as guilty as sin. Does the LAPD have a culture of corruption? Yes. But, that doesn't mean OJ is innocent. There is a gluttony of evidence showing he did it, and every legit and honest profiler and pathologist agrees.

[moondust]

40. Why didn't LAPD

check out any other leads after the crime? At that time it was certainly not an open-and-shut case. Any plain-as-day, open-and-shut evidence would have later come out at trial and easily convicted him. LAPD activities almost look........s c r i p t e d.

[Stargleamer]

45. sounds like 'unreasonable doubt' to me then. . .

"you can't negate reasonable doubt as to some evidence with other evidence of certainty"--well yes, one can have reasonable doubt "as to some evidence", but still have certainty that the accused did a crime. If in a murder trial, a small amount of a blood can't be accounted for that should have been in some criminologist's vial somewhere, but a videotape exists showing the accused repeatedly slashing a victim, then it would be most prudent to come to an overall assessment of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

To insist that all discrepancies must be accounted for is often unreasonable and can get even paranoid.

Also, I'm not sure that the first jury wasn't aware of of shoe-print analysis, although perhaps they did not know of the photos. Here's what wikipedia says: "The prosecution also presented dozens of expert witnesses on subjects ranging from DNA fingerprinting to shoe print analysis that they contended placed Simpson at the scene of the crime."

[wakeme2008]

27. that picture was photoshopped

[Richard Steele]

41. Your graphic contains errors in both measurement and methodology.

[wakeme2008]

44. Don't think so...

it was done by a well known photo analysis hated by the CIA :)

Found a link to Jack White http://www.jfkresearch.com/morningstar/morningstar5.htm

google Jack White's "BADGEMAN"

[Stargleamer]

47. Even if true. . .

It wasn't the only photo.

[silverojo]

28. If OJ was behind the murder, then someone did it for him

There's no way a man could murder two people without sustaining any bruises, as he supposedly did. And yes, the LAPD is notorious for planting evidence. That's not to say OJ couldn't have *hired* a killer, but there's no way he himself did it.

[LostinVA]

35. He did have cuts and bruises

However, there is definite evidence someone covered/cleaned up for him. The civil prosecutor thinks it was probably his eldest daughter.

[moondust]

31. Agree.

Crime scene was a bloodbath. No way to escape it without getting blood in the pores and crevices of clothing and skin which would then be transferred to everything you come into contact with. Piece of cake for CSI.

Furman was/is a creep who moved to Bigotsville, Idaho. Then the Ramparts Division a while later cast a long shadow over the LAPD...

[LostinVA]

32. He did it n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

36. I'm going to come out and say it even though I don't usually anymore...

I think his oldest son did it. Whatever the case, Prosecution botched up the case and enough reasonable doubt was introduced so that the jury could only do what they did. The sad part is that the jury was judged for following the directions of the court.

[JuniperLea]

42. I guess you think Ron's family shouldn't have won

their civil suit.

[ContraBass Black]

2. What if, just what if, the jury was right,

And the massive public vilification and ostracism is unjustified?

[bluestateguy]

4. perhaps you are right

All I meant to imply was that O.J.'s search for the real killer is not going so well. It's been 11 years, and he has not turned up anything (that we know of). He did promise to look for the real killers after he was acquitted.

[Gabi Hayes]

9. oh?

[Tulum_Moon]

11. OJ was framed

We all know that.
His life after his wifes death what I would expect from a grieving spouse. As far as the detectives go.............let them drown in their own crap.

[madeline_con]

14. Could you explain one thing about this "framed" argument?

Who would frame the guy, and why? Was someone supposedly jealous because he was a famous ex-football player, and they didn't make the team? Seriously, what's up with that, given all the evidence to the contrary? :shrug:

[Skittles]

33. no, we do not know that

from everything I have read, he was - and IS- forever guilty

[LostinVA]

37. His life after his BATTERED, EX WIFE'S death

shows the opposite.

[Midlodemocrat]

46. You forgot the sarcasm smilie.

He was guilty as all get out. Battered wives are most at risk for losing their lives when they finally make the break from the abusive spouse. Textbook.

Game. Set. Match. Guilty as hell.

[opihimoimoi]

10. I am convinced he did it....the blood, the DNA, his demeanor, his

history of spouse abuse, etc

Besides, the 2nd jury found him guilty.

[madeline_con]

15. His attempted flight to Mexico with cash and a disguise...

Oh, wait, that was for a costume party at a club with a really high door charge.

[Tulum_Moon]

16. There was no 2nd jury

There was Simpson vs the state of Ca.
And then there was Simpson vs the Browns.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

19. The 2nd jury found him liable, not guilty

Guilt is a legal term of art in a criminal case. In the civil case the jury found him liable for monetary damages. There was no issue of innocence or guilt regarding a crime.

[opihimoimoi]

20. My Bad.... he was found to be LIABLE...which infers guilt IMHO

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

22. It's a different standard

As you know, in a civil case like OJ's second trial, only nine of the twelve jurors have to find that the defendant is at least 51% liable. In a criminal case, all twelve must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I too think he did it. But I think if you dispassionately examine the handling of the criminal case, the jury reached the only verdict it could under the circumstances. The DNA match went completely out the window as soon as Detective Vannater, who had credibility problems because he privately stated OJ was guilty from the start, brought the blood sample to the murder scene and separate testimony indicated that blood was missing from the time OJ gave the sample to the time it reached the police lab.

[madeline_con]

12. Twelve years already since he decapitated Nicole.

How time flies!

[kskiska]

17. The shoes

[New Government]

21. Yup....The shoes proved it for me

He said the photos were faked and then they produced a VIDEO.
Lying wife-killer should be in prison FOREVER.

---------------

[wakeme2008]

29. photoshopped

[jsamuel]

18. the OJ Simpson trial was the awful climax of our day of modern news

turned news to complete crap

probably more a symptom than a cause though

[Mind_your_head]

23. Yes, that was MOST DEFINITELY a (bad) turning point,,,,,,

...the general public seemed to really *love it*....all the drama, sensationalism. It was a turning point. *sigh*

[Arkham House]

43. Read a good account sometime of the trial of Hauptmann in 1935--

--for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Proportionally, and taking the changes in media into account, that was a *bigger* circus than even OJ was. Twas ever thus, I'm afraid...and I might add, the evidence for Hauptmann's innocence is very strong, certainly stronger than evidence of OJ's innocence...

[jobycom]

24. Like we have any idea.

I don't know if he's guilty or innocent, all I know is every bit of "evidence" I saw came from the same media that told me Reagan was good, Clinton was bad, and is now telling me Bush isn't drunk. I trust any jury over the media any day.

[niyad]

25. pretty sure he is guilty--the blood, the shoes, the "slow speed chase"

everything. and despite the criticism of fuhrman, if you read his book about the case--VERY interesting.

on the other hand, I was actually relieved when the jury came back "not guilty" for two reasons. first-no possibility of a riot a la the rodney king verdict (will always remember that--my birthday, which was spent watching the news coverage) and second: once he was out of prison, his safety was no longer the concern or burden of the taxpayers of california.

articles keep referring to ron goldman as her friend, yet from what I remember, he was a waiter at a restaurant, and was simply returning glasses she had left. the implication was that there was something going on between the two of them.

[ariesgem]

26. I thought he did it

There were plenty of reasons why I thought he did it- DNA, those ugly-ass shoes and his Bronco was luminoled(sp) and it showed that blood was smeared all over his dash board. I remember that Judge Ito didn't allow that evidence into the trial because of some technicality.

Also -the way they were murdered (being stabbed over & over & over)to me suggests that it was a crime of passion (jealously, hate, etc..). If the killing was done by a "hit man" as one of his lawyers suggested, a gun would have been used - quick and clean.

[wakeme2008]

30. pisst OJ and the DAs and the Police know who really killed her

and it was not OJ.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0970205805.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[WinkyDink]

38. "It's hard to believe I've been allowed to walk the streets these

12 years."

Oh, not quite what he said? Whatever.

[NNN0LHI]

39. My racist parents can't go a single day without bringing up OJ

Weird obsession.

Don

[trackfan]

48. Here's a "Kato did it" site

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme3/ojisinnocent/