Claiming OJ Simpson to be innocnent of the murders is an attack on reason

[kiaer.ts]

Both you and I know he is guilty.

I know, no such thing. I was not present at the place and time of the killings.

Apparently the jury was not convinced by the evidence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The jury knew he was guilty as well.

[BaalChatzaf]

The jury knew he was guilty as well.

You were not in the jury room so you do not know what the jury "knew".

The only thing we have is their verdict. They were not convinced that the State made its case. And that is all the jury has to decide. Did the State prove its charges beyond a reasonable or not.

As I said, only God and the perpetrator really know what happened in a situation where there were no living eye witnesses after the crime.

You weren't in the jury room and you weren't at the scene of the crime. All you have is suppositions. No observed facts, just suppositions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Rich Engle]

He did it. Everyone knows that.

rde

Shit, that's one of the many reasons I don't play golf.

[kiaer.ts]

The jury knew he was guilty as well.

You were not in the jury room so you do not know what the jury "knew".

The only thing we have is their verdict. They were not convinced that the State made its case. And that is all the jury has to decide. Did the State prove its charges beyond a reasonable or not.

As I said, only God and the perpetrator really know what happened in a situation where there were no living eye witnesses after the crime.

You weren't in the jury room and you weren't at the scene of the crime. All you have is suppositions. No observed facts, just suppositions.

You know, Bob, you keep forgetting that I know what you're alias means: bald faced liar.

The evidence was not sequestered in the jury room, it was broadcast live on every channel and summarized in the papers the following day. There is nothing the jury knew that the public didn't know, and the defense theory was never to deny the evidence or its obvious implications, but to say that it "could have been" faked. Not to provide evidence that it was faked, but to make the arbitrary claim that it "could have been" faked.

If you want to claim that as an autistic you find it impossible to evaluate the physical evidence in the face of well-motivated liars putting forth pretend scenarios, feel free to play the disability card.

If you want to claim that you didn't watch TV or read a newspaper in early 1995, then please do so. I still won't believe you, but at least you'll be making a more coherent case than saying the the jury had privileged information.

[BaalChatzaf]

The jury knew he was guilty as well.

You were not in the jury room so you do not know what the jury "knew".

The only thing we have is their verdict. They were not convinced that the State made its case. And that is all the jury has to decide. Did the State prove its charges beyond a reasonable or not.

As I said, only God and the perpetrator really know what happened in a situation where there were no living eye witnesses after the crime.

You weren't in the jury room and you weren't at the scene of the crime. All you have is suppositions. No observed facts, just suppositions.

You know, Bob, you keep forgetting that I know what you're alias means: bald faced liar.

The evidence was not sequestered in the jury room, it was broadcast live on every channel and summarized in the papers the following day. There is nothing the jury knew that the public didn't know, and the defense theory was never to deny the evidence or its obvious implications, but to say that it "could have been" faked. Not to provide evidence that it was faked, but to make the arbitrary claim that it "could have been" faked.

The jury found the evidence not sufficiently convincing to convict. What is your problem with that? Were you there in the jury room in which the evidence and the State's case was discussed? You were not.

And I am not a liar. I may be mistaken but I have no intent to deceive. And I am 100 percent right in saying only those who did an unwitnessed crime KNOW who did it.

I was not present at the scene of the crime so I do not know who did the murders. Neither do you you. You were not there.

You can suppose what you will. You can weigh the evidence that was made public, but all you will have in the end is probable cause for your conclusions as opposed to definite first person knowledge. In short you don't KNOW who did it. You have a belief, but no first hand knowledge.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

I ask the following questions:

Did O.J. leave sure markers that he was at the scene of the crime when the deed was done. Were there DNA or blood traces? Was there a clear photograph or television record of him being there? Were there eye witnesses (other than O.J.) who were there and able to testify later on? If there was physical evidence (such as the Famous Glove) is there only one way to interpret is that is consistent with physical laws?

If the answer to these questions is NO then there is no sure evidence that O.J. did the deed. Any conclusion the jury reached is based on supposition and hypothesis. Supposition, hypothesis, belief and hunch are NOT facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[algernonsidney]

Do people have some type of powers here? I'm especially asking Xray this question. It seems that Xray saw the murder take place with his/her own eyes, or at least believes it.

Here is a very interesting documentary which argues that Jason Simpson (OJ's son) actually did it. He also argues that OJ did go to the murder scene, that OJ knew that his son did it, and that OJ wanted to divert attention from his son.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795&hl#

[Brant Gaede]

The idea Jason did it and OJ was trying to protect his son does explain OJ's subsequent behavior at least to some extent. The other explanation is he is guilty. Regardless, he's in the slammer now; for a long time.

--Brant

[J Neil Schulman]

Do people have some type of powers here? I'm especially asking Xray this question. It seems that Xray saw the murder take place with his/her own eyes, or at least believes it.

Here is a very interesting documentary which argues that Jason Simpson (OJ's son) actually did it. He also argues that OJ did go to the murder scene, that OJ knew that his son did it, and that OJ wanted to divert attention from his son.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795&hl#

Chris, if I'd know Bill Dear's documentary, The Overlooked Suspect was already on the web at full length I would have posted this link myself.

XRay, this is the documentary I've been referring to repeatedly.

Watch it.

[Xray]

I ask the following questions:

Did O.J. leave sure markers that he was at the scene of the crime when the deed was done. Were there DNA or blood traces?

Yes.

From Bugliosi's book Outrage, p. 11:

At the crime scene were five blood drops leading away for the slain bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman towards he rear alley four of which were immediately to the left of bloody size 12 shoe prints (Simpson's shoe size). This indicated of course, that the killer had been wounded on the left side of his body. And the morning after the murders, Simpson was observed by the police to be wearing a bandage on his left middle finger. When the bandage was removed, it was seen that he had a deep cut on the knuckle of the finger.

The blood at the crime scene turned out to be Simpson's.

In the police interview on the day after the murders, Simpson stated he bled in his home "last night" (= the night of the murders).

From V. Bugliosi's book Outrage, p. 128:

The detectives also tell Simpson that in addition to the blood in his car and home, they also found blood in the driveway of his home.

Lange: Well, there's blood at your house and in the driveway, and we've got a search warrant, and we're going to get the blood. We found some in your house. Is that your blood that's there?

Simpson: If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave.

Lange: Last night?

Simpson: Yeah.

Simpson is far too evasive as to how he cut himself. He says he doesn't know. A deep cut on his finger and he has "no idea" how it got there.

Bugliosi p. 409: (bolding mine).

T. L.: Okay, so it was last night you cut it?

P. V. : Somewhere after the dance recital?

O.J.S.: Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house.

P. V.: Okay, after the recital?

O.J.S. Yeah.

P. V.: What do you think happened?

O.J.S.: I have no idea, man. You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea.

Very revealing, that passage. Why does it matter what the police tells you in order for you to remember where and how you cut yourself??

This was of course a huge slip-up on Simpson's part. "You guys haven't told me anything to which I can fit my answer to match the evidence you have found." Imo THESE were the murderer's real thoughts shining through in his answer.

If a suspect's blood has been found at the crime scene next to the murder victims, and if the police can elicit from the suspect (who has a deep cut on the finger of his left hand) that he cut himself on the night of the murders, around the time when these murders happened, and when the suspect says he has no idea how he got the cut, that’s a huge red flag.

So with Simpson's blood being found at the crime scene and in the other locations, that's really the end of the ball game, as Bugliosi put it. Again, look at the evidence.

Was there a clear photograph or television record of him being there?

How many murderers do you have which are photographed or filmed in the act ? If such evidence were necessary to obtain a conviction, the jails would be empty.

Were there eye witnesses (other than O.J.) who were there and able to testify later on?

It looks like a man matching Simpson’s description was seen in his Bronco at an intersection nearby, driving away, presumably after the time of the murders.

I'll address in a separate post the testimony of the limousine driver who was scheduled to pick up Simpson at his Rockingham estate on that night.

If there was physical evidence (such as the Famous Glove) is there only one way to interpret is that is consistent with physical laws?

Any alternative scenarios are so highly implausible that they are absurd, especially in view of the all the other evidence implicating Simpson as well.

If the answer to these questions is NO then there is no sure evidence that O.J. did the deed. Any conclusion the jury reached is based on supposition and hypothesis. Supposition, hypothesis, belief and hunch are NOT facts.

You always have to look at the totality of the evidence. If every single item of evidence implicates one specific individual, which inference is to be drawn?

Chris, if I'd know Bill Dear's documentary, The Overlooked Suspect was already on the web at full length I would have posted this link myself.

XRay, this is the documentary I've been referring to repeatedly.

Watch it.

Can one watch that one for free? For the one you had linked to a while ago, one would have had to pay.

I'm quite skeptic when comes to such "documenantaries"; I recall watching "crockumentaries" where perps guilty as hell were presented as "innocent".

If I watch it, we're going to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Interested?

Edited January 25, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Or, he tried to pull his psycho son off the two slashed victims and cut his finger and was fishing for some information so he did not give up his psycho son...

just a thought.

[J Neil Schulman]

Chris, if I'd know Bill Dear's documentary, The Overlooked Suspect was already on the web at full length I would have posted this link myself.

XRay, this is the documentary I've been referring to repeatedly.

Watch it.

Can one watch that one for free?

No, clicking on the link to watch the Google video automatically deducts $10,000 from your checking account. In the name of God, don't click it! *snort*

For the one you had linked to a while ago, one would have had to pay.

Yeah, I can see how open to contrary evidence you are on this subject that you're too fucking busy to click and find out.

I'm quite skeptic when comes to such "documenantaries"; I recall watching "crockumentaries" where perps guilty as hell were presented as "innocent".

If I watch it, we're going to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Interested?

Not really. I've already concluded that the documentary could contain date-and-time stamped security camera video footage of Jason Simpson murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, then mugging for the camera, and you still wouldn't believe it.

[J Neil Schulman]

For anyone other than Xray, who I consider a hopeless cultist worshiping at the Mount of Failed Evidence, here is the link once again to Bill Dear's award-winning documentary, The Overlooked Suspect:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7905933759946122795&hl#&hl=en

This is a full-length free Google video.

Edited January 26, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[Xray]

I'm quite skeptic when comes to such "documenantaries"; I recall watching "crockumentaries" where perps guilty as hell were presented as "innocent".

If I watch it, we're going to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Interested?

Not really.

Interesting that after telling me to watch it, you now suddenly don't want me to go through it.

I've already concluded that the documentary could contain date-and-time stamped security camera video footage of Jason Simpson murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, then mugging for the camera, and you still wouldn't believe it.

So you have already "concluded" that for which you cannot provide a scintilla of evidence since it is an expression of a mere belief on your part. Your argumentation on the "God" thread btw was based on the same thinking error.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

I'm quite skeptic when comes to such "documenantaries"; I recall watching "crockumentaries" where perps guilty as hell were presented as "innocent".

If I watch it, we're going to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Interested?

Not really.

Interesting that after telling me to watch it, you now suddenly don't want me to go through it.

I've already concluded that the documentary could contain date-and-time stamped security camera video footage of Jason Simpson murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, then mugging for the camera, and you still wouldn't believe it.

So you have already "concluded" that for which you cannot provide a scintilla of evidence since it is an expression of a mere belief on your part. Your argumentation on the "God" thread btw was based on the same thinking error.

No, I've concluded that you're not interested in examining any evidence that doesn't agree with your prejudices.

[Xray]

[Replying to Ba'al]: I'll address in a separate post the testimony of the limousine driver who was scheduled to pick up Simpson at his Rockingham estate on that night.

(Source: V. Bugliosi's book Outrage, p. 245):

On the night of the murders, the limousine driver Alan Park arrived at the Simpson estate at 10:22 p.m. to pick up drive Simpson for the L.A. airport.Park testified that at 10:22 p.m., (which the evidence shows is around the very time of the murders), he didn see Simpson's Bronco at the estate. At 10:39 p.m., the Bronco still wasn't there. Park further testifed that from 10:40 to 10:50, he rang the intercom at the gate several times, and there was no answer from inside Simpson's residence.

At about 10:55 p.m., he sees an African-American person around six feet tall, two hundred pounds, and wearing all dark clothing walking briskly toward the front door of Simpson's home. After this person enters the residence, the light in the entryway is immediately turned on, and within seconds, the limo driver Park goes back to the gate, rings the the buzzer again, and this time Simpson immediately answers the intercom. So we know it was Simposn who entered the residence.

Simpson then tells the limo driver a blatant lie: "I overslept, I just got out of the shower, and I'll be down in a minute."

Simpson who knew when the murders took place, quite obviously was trying to establish an alibi for himself. For what other reason would have to tell the limo driver such a flat-out lie?

Edited January 28, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray, with her half glasses at the end or her nose and her hands on her hips, wonders the following :

Much as I try to get my nose on my hips, I can't do it.

[quoting Xray]: Direct question to you: Do you think Simpson committed the murders?"

She even used boldface in her original post, so I guess I am required to take time out of my preparations for a trial starting on Monday to answer ;) :

Since we are not in a courtroom, you are of course not required to to prepare anything. ;)

I merely used boldface to get a clear statement (for the discussion) from you on this issue.

1. I agree there is a mountain of evidence linking OJ to the crimes,

I'm relieved to hear that you don't deny that there is a mountain of evidence against Simpson.

but unfortunately, you are assuming the conclusion, and Neil has put forth his own variety of facts and arguments.

So you agree hat there is mountain of evidence implicating Simpson in the murders, but think it is unfortunate to conclude that, going by this evidence, he is guilty?

As for Neil "putting forth his own variety of facts and arguments", of what value do you think they are compared to the hard evidence against Simpson?

He is not asking us to accept his position on faith, and there is no reason to believe he is making anything up.

Accepting anything "on faith" plays no role anyway in examining criminal cases

Nor do I think Neil made anything up. I have no doubt that he really believes Simpson is innocent.

If you don't like his facts, dispute them or rebut them.

It isn't a question of "liking" or "not liking" facts.

As for disputing them/rebutting them, I have suggested to Neil that we go through the Bill Dear documentary with a fine tooth comb. Any input fom you as an ex-prosecutor would be much appreciated.

You seem to be confusing Neil's OJ theory and his God theory.

No, I'm not.

It was Neil who threw God into the mix when he wrote that during one of his "God encounters', God conveyed to him that OJ Simpson was innocent and framed. I could not help asking myself how Neil's God could be that clueless about this criminal case.

Neil later btw abandoned his God's theory about OJ being framed and switched to Bill Dear's theory, which is an entirely different one.

So it looks like God's A is not A anymore in Neil's eyes. B)

Edited January 28, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

Neil later btw abandoned his God's theory about OJ being framed and switched to Bill Dear's theory, which is an entirely different one.

So it looks like God's A is not A anymore in Neil's eyes. B)

Said the Simpson "expert" Xray who has neither watched the Bill Dear documentary nor read my book on the subject.

[caroljane]

XRay, be careful girlfriend! JNS could be the billionaire--he's a brilliant writer and could create an impenetrable alias!

[Xray]

Do I think OJ committed the murders? Yes. I base this view largely on my view (1) that the prosecution of OJ was riddled by weakness, clowning and grandstanding, (2) on the strength of arguments made in Vincent Bugliosi's book (notwithstanding Neil's Monday Morning Quarterbacking of Bugliosi's alleged Monday Morning Quarterbacking), and (3)on the outcome of the civil trial, where outstanding lawyers went toe to toe on most of these issues, but in a more professional fashion, and in front of a real judge, not some starstruck cat in love with the cameras. I also say this because I am temperamentally unsuited to any theory that involves Grand Conspiracies. People aren't usually smart enough or organized enough to pull such conspiracies off, such as would be involved, for instance, in the planting of the blood.

ITA with your assession. On the other thread, Neil has been trying to deny the significance of Vincent Bugliosi's compelling arguments which he presents in his outstanding book ("Outrage") on the case:

"Bugliosi wrote perhaps the worst book of the 30-or-so I read on the Simpson trial."

Vincent Bugliosi, whose only claim to fame is prosecuting Charles Manson in a case that a first-year law student could have won, wrote one of the most prosecution-biased and uninteresting books on the Brown/Goldman murders, that only reported on evidence presented in trial.

You replied:

I am afraid I can't agree with you on this Neil.

Some of VB's other claims to fame: over 100 felony convictions in front of juries, with one loss. You might think the Manson case was a lay-down, but I doubt you will hear many people who try cases to juries say that.

...

Also, VB is one of the more refined tacticians on the subject of best practices for trial lawyers. He is, for instance, one of the few trial lawyers who has theorized the proper way to ask a witness the "why" question on cross examination. Finally, VB has also been a successful defense attorney, after he retired from the DA's office.

I have practiced law throughout the country for 24 years. If I or a close family member were accused of a serious crime, I would hire VB to defend me. If I could steal a day of one other lawyer's time to help me become a better trial lawyer, I would pick Spence or Bugliosi.

Neil is totally wrong in claiming that a first year law student could have won the Manson case.

The motive for the Tate/LaBianca murders was a most bizarre, unusual one, where the master mind behind the murders was not even present at the crime scenes. It was Bugliosi's investigative ingeniousness which enabled him to put the intricate puzzle together.

Imo Helter Skelter is one of the best true crime books ever written.

Bugliosi's books are also an excellent demonstration of rationality and stringent thinking, and one can learn more about logic and reasoning from his books than from some philosophers ...

Here in Germany, crucial insider info about criminal cases is quite sealed from the public, whereas I have been able to study, on the net, lab reports, police interviews with suspects, grand jury and whole trial transcripts of US cases.

At the end of the day, at least we can examine and test Neil's hypothesis regarding OJ.

I have started watching the Bill Dear documentary but will wait until I have seen it completely before commenting on it in detail.

The reason for this is because something in reality actually did happen. A was A on that horrible night.

Correct. There exists only is only one truth about what happened, not truths A and truths B.

I'm always surprised at how often people seem to misunderstand the film classic "Rashomon" when it comes to the deed itself. The misunderstanding is due to the monk's complaining that each of the eyewitnesses to the crime (the victim included!) have told "the useful truth". But what is called the "useful truth" by the monk is merely that version of events told by each eyewitness which presents each of them in the most favorable light.

Therefore the viewer is left in the dark about who killed the man. One is left in the dark as to whose version is the more likely. For all versions seem equally plausible. On the other hand, despite the plausibility of each version, all eyewitness could have been lying as well.

While the film, via the "testimony" of the eyewitnesses, casts spotlights on elements which could have factored in, nothing is revealed about the real sequence of events and about who did what.

Rashomon is a "must-see" in many respects. Brilliantly acted and directed, breathtakingly suspenseful, and a deeply philosophical film about the "truth" question.

While there can be many contradictions in testimonies, while there can be contradictions between what people say and what they do, the truth about a fact is always consistent and contradiction-free. OJ Simpson cannot have done it and not have done it. It has to be either one or the other. A is A.

And what does the evidence tell us? As V. Bugliosi has pointed out, the evidence implicating Simpson in the murders was so overwhelming that one could throw out 80 % and the remaining 20 % would still be more than sufficient to make the case against him.

Neil's theory is therefore an appeal to reason, not an attack on it.

I still would call an "attack on reason" a theory which explains away the mountain of evidence that so clearly marks OJ Simpson as the killer.

Said the Simpson "expert" Xray who has neither watched the Bill Dear documentary nor read my book on the subject.

Read Bugliosi's book if you are looking for an expert.

I have started watching Bill Dear documentary, and as for your own book: what is the point in reading it since you have switched from your God's version ("OJ was framed") to Bill Dear's version which is different. Bill Dear seems to be somewhat smarter than your God as he places Simpson at the crime scene, knowing that is what the forensic evidence indicates.

XRay, be careful girlfriend! JNS could be the billionaire--he's a brilliant writer and could create an impenetrable alias!

I love your wit and sense of humor, sister!

But all things considered, profile-wise, my main candidate so far remains Scrooge McDuck (a capitalist to the core, whom no one has ever seen perform an altruistic act). The John Galt of Duckburg, so to speak, albeit not half as good-looking.

Xray is cookin'!

--Brant

What is cookin' supposed to mean here? I don't have the time to go through the Urban Dictionary because I'll be - guess what - cooking dinner now.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray is cookin'!

--Brant

[caroljane]

Xray is cookin'!

--Brant

Brant, how witty! But you know, I cook better. You know you could anagram Brant Gaede into Bread something, what a clever code! Do you like long walks on the beach and All-in Epestemology Mud Wrestling? Me too!

[caroljane]

Tee-hee, silly me misspelling my favourite word. I need an intellectual mentor.

[Selene]

Nice move by Ms. Xray to save a post by using the edit button to answer a subsequent post by Brant.

At first I thought I missed something.

Kudos, Ms. Xray.

Adam

[J Neil Schulman]

Neil's theory is therefore an appeal to reason, not an attack on it.

I still would call an "attack on reason" a theory which explains away the mountain of evidence that so clearly marks OJ Simpson as the killer.

Xray preaching on the Mount of Evidence. Which lost the prosecution its case. Therefore, continuing to refer to a mountain of evidence is asinine, unless by mountain you mean a hill of garbage in a landfill.

Said the Simpson "expert" Xray who has neither watched the Bill Dear documentary nor read my book on the subject.

Read Bugliosi's book if you are looking for an expert.

I have started watching Bill Dear documentary, and as for your own book: what is the point in reading it since you have switched from your God's version ("OJ was framed") to Bill Dear's version which is different. Bill Dear seems to be somewhat smarter than your God as he places Simpson at the crime scene, knowing that is what the forensic evidence indicates.

Gee, let me think. Perhaps if you'd read it you'd have a clue that in several scenarios in my book I placed Simpson at the crime scene. And that in my book I suggested that Simpson might have been tricked into believing that Jason did it, but that Jason was framed as well by the actual murderer. And that my book contains not a single scenario consistent with the evidence, but several.

But, no, no, no. No need for the omniscient Xray to read anything before making ignorant comments on it.

By the way, I hope you enjoy the part of Bill Dear's documentary where he's being interviewed in front of a book shelf with two copies of my book directly behind his head.

Edited January 30, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman