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

[Brant Gaede]

I find it more likely Jason did it than the LAPD did a competent investigation.

--Brant

[Xray]

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

Thank you, Mr. Selene. Necessity is the mother of invention. ;)

But still I have no idea what Brant meant by cookin' in that context, so if you or others here would be so kind as to enlighten me on that, TIA.

Xray preaching on the Mount of Evidence.

You really are quite an imaginative and inventive writer, Mr. Schulman, one has got to hand it to you.

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.

Oh my. Like I said, you really, really are an imaginative and inventive writer, a quality which no doubt in comes in handy when writing science fiction, since this deals with highly improbable, and often even downright impossible scenarios.

But when you transfer those science-fiction-fantasy writer qualities of yours to actual crime scenes, you get above scenarios like OJ was tricked into believing Jason did it, and Jason in turn was tricked by the killer - hey, that looks like the beginning of an infinite regress.

How's that for a sequel: now that killer was a contract killer, a hit man hired by the master minds, the real wirepullers behind all that. This clears the path for you now to throw any conspiracy theories into the mix. There is no limit to the imagination.

You can now pick and choose between the LAPD as the bad guys, or say the drug mafia did it, or, if you want, connect it all to the mysterious non-existing "Small Foreign Faction" that allegedly killed the victim in another infamous criminal case.

And that my book contains not a single scenario consistent with the evidence, but several.

I don't think you intended the first part of the phrase sound so unintentionally funny as it does when one reads:

"And that my book contains not a single scenario consistent with the evidence".

Could the omission of the word "only" have been Freudian slip? ;)

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.

I have no doubt you enjoyed it but there no is reason to project your own joy on that onto me.

I have now seen the documentary for the first time.

I must say I'm quite impressed by Bill Dear. That's some real good sleuth. A picture-book private eye, so to speak, both thorough and creative in his thinking, but who unfortunately did not use his talents to look in the right direction.

Also, he put the cart before the horse by first presenting his theory and then looking for evidence which might fit it, instead of letting the evidence lead him to the theory.

I have a question: in the documentry, is that the video which allegedy shows Simpson happy and relaxed after the dance recital?

For Simpson is lightyears away from being relaxed there. And if Bill Dear is the highly intuitive person he claims to be, then of course he will have seen it too on examining Simpson's face more closely. For when you to stop the video at intervals to study Simpson's face, you can see it. At one time, he even has a shockingly agressive, staring look in his eyes, opening them widely.

When Simpson smiles, it is a frozen smile, he curves his mouth upward but his eyes don't participate in the feeling he wants to bring across. Simpson was faking the relaxed man there, no question.

This also fits with (I think it was Nicole's sister and her friend who said that) him, during the dance recital, having a glowering look; they had the impression he was "simmering".

Still not interested in going through the documentary in detail with me here, Neil?

If you think I'm that wrong on certain points, what keeps you from pointing out the errors and correct them?

Edited January 30, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

"Cookin'" here used means doing your own thing at a gallop. It's like going nutzo in the kitchen getting Thanksgiving diner ready for the twelve carnivores heading for the dining room.

--Brant

Edited January 31, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[J Neil Schulman]

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

Thank you, Mr. Selene. Necessity is the mother of invention. ;)

But still I have no idea what Brant meant by cookin' in that context, so if you or others here would be so kind as to enlighten me on that, TIA.

Xray preaching on the Mount of Evidence.

You really are quite an imaginative and inventive writer, Mr. Schulman, one has got to hand it to you.

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.

Oh my. Like I said, you really, really are an imaginative and inventive writer, a quality which no doubt in comes in handy when writing science fiction, since this deals with highly improbable, and often even downright impossible scenarios.

But when you transfer those science-fiction-fantasy writer qualities of yours to actual crime scenes, you get above scenarios like OJ was tricked into believing Jason did it, and Jason in turn was tricked by the killer - hey, that looks like the beginning of an infinite regress.

How's that for a sequel: now that killer was a contract killer, a hit man hired by the master minds, the real wirepullers behind all that. This clears the path for you now to throw any conspiracy theories into the mix. There is no limit to the imagination.

You can now pick and choose between the LAPD as the bad guys, or say the drug mafia did it, or, if you want, connect it all to the mysterious non-existing "Small Foreign Faction" that allegedly killed the victim in another infamous criminal case.

And that my book contains not a single scenario consistent with the evidence, but several.

I don't think you intended the first part of the phrase sound so unintentionally funny as it does when one reads:

"And that my book contains not a single scenario consistent with the evidence".

Could the omission of the word "only" have been Freudian slip? ;)

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.

I have no doubt you enjoyed it but there no is reason to project your own joy on that onto me.

I have now seen the documentary for the first time.

I must say I'm quite impressed by Bill Dear. That's some real good sleuth. A picture-book private eye, so to speak, both thorough and creative in his thinking, but who unfortunately did not use his talents to look in the right direction.

Also, he put the cart before the horse by first presenting his theory and then looking for evidence which might fit it, instead of letting the evidence lead him to the theory.

I have a question: in the documentry, is that the video which allegedy shows Simpson happy and relaxed after the dance recital?

For Simpson is lightyears away from being relaxed there. And if Bill Dear is the highly intuitive person he claims to be, then of course he will have seen it too on examining Simpson's face more closely. For when you to stop the video at intervals to study Simpson's face, you can see it. At one time, he even has a shockingly agressive, staring look in his eyes, opening them widely.

When Simpson smiles, it is a frozen smile, he curves his mouth upward but his eyes don't participate in the feeling he wants to bring across. Simpson was faking the relaxed man there, no question.

This also fits with (I think it was Nicole's sister and her friend who said that) him, during the dance recital, having a glowering look; they had the impression he was "simmering".

Still not interested in going through the documentary in detail with me here, Neil?

If you think I'm that wrong on certain points, what keeps you from pointing out the errors and correct them?

Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems.

Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night.

I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home.

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth.

Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

Edited January 30, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[Cariad]

Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems.

Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night.

I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home.

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth.

Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available?

[J Neil Schulman]

Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems.

Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night.

I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home.

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth.

Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available?

http://pulpless.com/0606.html

[caroljane]

Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems.

Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night.

I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home.

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth.

Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available?

http://pulpless.com/0606.html

Jeez... you didn't even say, "Thanks for your interest."

[J Neil Schulman]

Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems.

Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night.

I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home.

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth.

Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available?

http://pulpless.com/0606.html

Jeez... you didn't even say, "Thanks for your interest."

We appreciate your business. Due to the high volume of messages there might be a delay of up to 24 hours before a representative gets back to you. If you'd like a faster response time you may call our enhanced Customer Relations Hotline, but you will have to converse in Hindi. एक अच्छा दिन है.

[caroljane]

Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems.

Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night.

I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home.

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth.

Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available?

http://pulpless.com/0606.html

Jeez... you didn't even say, "Thanks for your interest."

We appreciate your business. Due to the high volume of messages there might be a delay of up to 24 hours before a representative gets back to you. If you'd like a faster response time you may call our enhanced Customer Relations Hotline, but you will have to converse in Hindi. एक अच्छा दिन है.

I guess that's why they call it "the Publishing Art"

[Cariad]

Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems.

Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night.

I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home.

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth.

Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available?

http://pulpless.com/0606.html

Jeez... you didn't even say, "Thanks for your interest."

We appreciate your business. Due to the high volume of messages there might be a delay of up to 24 hours before a representative gets back to you. If you'd like a faster response time you may call our enhanced Customer Relations Hotline, but you will have to converse in Hindi. एक अच्छा दिन है.

I guess that's why they call it "the Publishing Art"

It's okay. I'd rather buy a used copy of the actual book from Amazon than have to read it as a PDF anyway.

[caroljane]

XRay, come quick! "Bach Cariad" is Welsh for "Darling Boy"! Is that cute or what! And he doesn't want to pay for a new copy- pure McDuck! The treasure hunt continues....

[Cariad]

XRay, come quick! "Bach Cariad" is Welsh for "Darling Boy"! Is that cute or what! And he doesn't want to pay for a new copy- pure McDuck! The treasure hunt continues....

I'm not cheap, just broke. I'm a lousy capitalist, you see. Than also, I hate reading books on a computer screen.

[Xray]

"Cookin'" here used means doing your own thing at a gallop. It's like going nutzo in the kitchen getting Thanksgiving diner ready for the twelve carnivores heading for the dining room.

Thanks for explaining, Brant.

XRay, come quick! "Bach Cariad" is Welsh for "Darling Boy"! Is that cute or what! And he doesn't want to pay for a new copy- pure McDuck! The treasure hunt continues....

That sure looks like some hot trail, Daunce - you're one helluva sleuth! The "not wanting to pay" could be a pivotal clue indeed. But we're going to save the key question "Are you rolling in money?" for later when we'll have accumulated more evidence.

(I was in Wales two years ago, in the Brecon Beacons - I loved it there!)

I'm not cheap, just broke. I'm a lousy capitalist, you see.

Looks like McDuck is placing a red herring here again to distract from the real facts: ;)

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/scrooge_mcduck.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive%3Fmonth%3D12%26year%3D2010%26base_name%3Dwealthy_interests_looking_forw&usg=__9neU1FO1Lj4CXlB-drnZcDzeqZE=&h=346&w=425&sz=42&hl=de&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=YxNyH5qAZYHvDM:&tbnh=169&tbnw=216&ei=y5BNTdLrCMm1tAbr3-WbDw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DScrooge%2BMcDuck%2Brolling%2Bin%2Bmoney%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DUx7%26sa%3DG%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D832%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C114&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=733&vpy=161&dur=717&hovh=198&hovw=243&tx=135&ty=127&oei=y5BNTdLrCMm1tAbr3-WbDw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0&biw=1280&bih=832

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial.

The problem is, that despite the fact that Jason Simpson was found to be a very troubled, disturbed individual, all of it does not exonerate O.J. Simpson whom the evidence implicates.

O.J. Simpson too was a disturbed individual, prone to violence.

Bill Dear is right though in calling a mistake LE's not checking on Jason's alibi more. Also, blood and hair samples should have been taken from Jason.

On the other hand, the restaurant employee Carlos Ramos in the video is far too unclear in his statements to be called a reliable witness.

As for the guy who says he obtained Jason's clock-out card where 10:30 was hand-written - again, we have no idea how reliable that person is. How on earth did he manage to obtain that card? And who says it was Jason who wrote the time on the card? Since the card obviously was not in Jason's possession anymore, anyone could have tampered with it.

The documentary also says nothing about what was (or what had been) on the knife Bill found.

If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch.

I'd have many questions to ask of B. Dear. So if you would give a link or send me a PM, TIA for your help.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Xray

[PDS]

"Cookin'" here used means doing your own thing at a gallop. It's like going nutzo in the kitchen getting Thanksgiving diner ready for the twelve carnivores heading for the dining room.

Thanks for explaining, Brant.

XRay, come quick! "Bach Cariad" is Welsh for "Darling Boy"! Is that cute or what! And he doesn't want to pay for a new copy- pure McDuck! The treasure hunt continues....

That sure looks like some hot trail, Daunce - you're one helluva sleuth! The "not wanting to pay" could be a pivotal clue indeed. But we're going to save the key question "Are you rolling in money?" for later when we'll have accumulated more evidence.

(I was in Wales two years ago, in the Brecon Beacons - I loved it there!)

Cariad. I'm not cheap, just broke. I'm a lousy capitalist, you see.

Looks like McDuck is placing a red herring here again to distract from the real facts: ;)

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/scrooge_mcduck.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive%3Fmonth%3D12%26year%3D2010%26base_name%3Dwealthy_interests_looking_forw&usg=__9neU1FO1Lj4CXlB-drnZcDzeqZE=&h=346&w=425&sz=42&hl=de&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=YxNyH5qAZYHvDM:&tbnh=169&tbnw=216&ei=y5BNTdLrCMm1tAbr3-WbDw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DScrooge%2BMcDuck%2Brolling%2Bin%2Bmoney%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DUx7%26sa%3DG%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D832%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C114&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=733&vpy=161&dur=717&hovh=198&hovw=243&tx=135&ty=127&oei=y5BNTdLrCMm1tAbr3-WbDw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0&biw=1280&bih=832

I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial.

The problem is, that despite the fact that Jason Simpson was found not be avery troubled and disturbed individual, all of it does not exonerate O. J. Simpson to whom the evidence

points.

Bill Dear is right though in calling a mistake LE's not checking on Jason's alibi more. Also, blood an hair samples should have been taken

On the other hand, the restaurant employee Carlos Ramos in the video is far too unclear in his statements to be called a reliable witness.

As for the guy who says he obtained Jason's clock-out card where 10:30 was hand-written - again, we have no idea how reliable that person is. How on earth did he manage to obtain that card? And who says it was Jason who wrote the time on the card? Since the card obviously was not in Jason's possession anymore, anyone could have tampered with it.

The documentary also says nothing about what was (or what been) on the knife Bill found.

Xray: don't your questions above--which invoke issues of reliability, mistakes made, and possible tampering--prove Neil's point and refute your own: i.e., that claiming OJ is innocent is not in fact an attack on reason?

[BaalChatzaf]

You believe "not-guilty" implies he must be innocent?

Since I was not present where and when the murders took place I have no sure Idea who did the deed.

Only God and the perpetrator know who done it. The issue for the Jury is; did the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

Slight setback in the Big Billionaire quest.

I got an anonymous tip that sounded hot, only to find that the information referred to the fact that the gentleman in question is 6'8".

And not a pro basketball player.

Edited February 5, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Xray]

Xray: don't your questions above--which invoke issues of reliability, mistakes made, and possible tampering--prove Neil's point and refute your own: i.e., that claiming OJ is innocent is not in fact an attack on reason?

They were merely questions I asked, and one would of course have to thoroughly investigate the reliability of the 'witnesses' Bill Dear provided.

Also, that something could have been tampered with does not mean it has been tampered with.

As for conspiration theories claiming that LE framed OJ Simpson by planting his blood at the crime scene, they are so unrealistic that Bill Dear had the common sense to present a scenario which does place Simpson at the crime scene.

There are crucial issues left out in Bill Dear’s presentation though. Like Dear not explaining how OJ’s Simpson came to bleed at the crime scene next to the dead body of Ron Goldman.

As for the ‘witnesses’ presented by B. Dear -

Suppose these persons had been cross-examined as witnesses at trial.

The restaurant employee Carlos Ramos was pretty vague when it came to the precise time at which Jason allegedly left. It did not even become clear whether he actually saw him leave.

No doubt the prosecution would have grilled Ramos on that, trying to get him in a corner. “Did you actually see Jason Simpson leave the restaurant on that evening, and if yes, did you look at what time it was when he left?”

If Ramos was unable to answer these questions with a yes, what would his testimony be worth?

It would also interest me what exactly Jason told the police.

For Ramos said that cooking for 200 people at eleven o' clock on that evening would have been impossible; but did Jason state at all that he was cooking that late?

For if Jason himself stated he clocked out at 10:30, Ramos’s challenging a timeline which places Jason cooking at 11 o’ clock makes no sense. Something does not add up there, and what does not add up has to be scrutinzed more closely.

So in an actual investigation, one would have to go through all that meticulously, and fascinating as Bill Dear’s take on the case is, and despite all the police blunders, the sourced evidence overwhelmingly implicates OJ Simpson as the perpetrator.

As for the person who says he was able to obtain Jason's clock in/out card. "How did you get that card?” he would be cross-examined at trial. (Interesting that Bill Dear does not tell the viewers anything about how the card got into the hands of the man).

(And isn’t it true that that if one obtains evidence illegally, by e. g. stealing the card from Jason’s pocket, this could not be admitted as evidence at a trial?)

As for the psychologist who said Jason was ‘too stupid’ to have committed the murders:

This is absurd indeed, and the other psychologist was right in saying it gives him a lot of concern.

For horrific as those rage murders were, they required no ‘criminally sophisticated’ mind to carry them out. The murderer did not even try to stage a scene, which indicates that he was in a hurry and, at this stage, unable to perform calculating acts. So he left his bloody glove lying there, and ran around in his house later without even thinking of putting a bandage on his deeply cut finger.

Simpson’s trying to perfom calculating acts set in later, when he, complaining to the limousine driver that it was “too hot” in the car, opened the window and - so Bill Dear’s theory - threw out his bag containing incriminating evidence like the Bruno Magli shoes.

(I believe the bag contained the murder weapon as well).

But again, throwing out the bag in the presence of the limousine driver (who could have noticed what was going on!) suggests little sophistication on the perpetrator’s part.

You have summed it up very well here:

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.

Was Jason called to testify at the civil trial?

Bill Dear took the viewer on a “What if” journey: What if OJ Simpson wasn’t the killer?

And his question as to who could be the most likely led him to Jason.

The strongest point in the documentary seems to be Bill’s pointing out that LE did not check on Jason’s alibi enough. But is that really the truth? If Jason told the police he had been cooking in the restaurant on that evening - surely the investigators would go to that place and ask the employees if they could confirm Jason’s alibi and then establish a time frame as to how long he was there and when exactly he left on that evening? If they failed to do that, this was indeed an inexcusable mistake on their part.

The weakest point in the documentary is that despite all the police blunders, the sourced evidence points to one person only: O.J. Simpson. Nothing in the documentary exonerates him.

Another weak point is where Jason's girlfriend is placed in the time line presented by Dear regarding the sequence of events.

Jason Simpson was prone to violence, but so was his father. It was O.J’s blood which was found at the crime scene. Isn’t this extremely incriminating forensic evidence the silent witness which tells us what happened?

The issue for the Jury is; did the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the prosecution had not held back from the jury crucial incriminating evidence against Simpson, they could have proved it.

A juror later said that if she had known about the incriminating evidence against Simpson which the prosecution did not present at trial, she would have to vote "guilty".

Some of this evidence the prosecution wanted to hold back so that they could confront Simpson with it on cross-examination, obviously ignoring the immense risk that Simpson might not testify at all.

How the prosecution could even think Simpson might testify is beyond me. For any defense lawyer worth his salt would probably have advised Simpson (whom a mountain of evidence implicated in the crimes) not to testify.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Slight setback in the Big Billionaire quest.

I got an anonymous tip that sounded hot, only to find that the information referred to the fact that the gentleman in question is 6'8".

And not a pro basketball player.

Oh - 6'8''? Now that would definitely eliminate Scrooge McDuck from the list of 'suspects'.

Looks like I'm back to square one.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2012/04/new-book-contends-oj-simpsons-son-was-nicoles-killer.html

Looks like this business is getting some fresh attention. The author is going to be on O'Reilly, this evening I think.

[Xray]

http://latimesblogs....les-killer.html

Looks like this business is getting some fresh attention. The author is going to be on O'Reilly, this evening I think.

The author is Bill Dear, whose theory has been discussed quite controversially here on this thread.

http://latimesblogs....les-killer.html

Bill Dear says he has the knife used in the murders, saying he obtained it from a storage facility rented by Jason Simpson, who had allowed his payments to lapse.

From my 05 February 2011 post:

The documentary [by Bill Dear] also says nothing about what was (or what had been) on the knife Bill found.

Has Bill Dear been asked on O'Reilly what was (or what had been) on that knife?

[PDS]

This thread reminds me of the Good Ole' Days!

Where has Scherck gone, by the way?

[PDS]

And where has Neil gone, for that matter?

[caroljane]

This thread reminds me of the Good Ole' Days!

Where has Scherck gone, by the way?

If he is the Bill Dear you are referencing, he had nothing to do with those murders and we strongly resent such insinuations! That man is a saint.

Impartially,

Scherk Fan Club

[9thdoctor]

If he is the Bill Dear you are referencing, he had nothing to do with those murders and we strongly resent such insinuations! That man is a saint.

Impartially,

Scherk Fan Club

Bill Dear is the investigator saying he knows Jason Simpson was the killer. No known relation to the Blessed William of Vancouver (and note that he's not yet achieved sainthood, though they say he's on the fast-track).

I can't get interested enough to follow up on this. I saw it on the Fox News site, so I thought I'd put in the link. I didn't watch the show.

[caroljane]

If he is the Bill Dear you are referencing, he had nothing to do with those murders and we strongly resent such insinuations! That man is a saint.

Impartially,

Scherk Fan Club

Bill Dear is the investigator saying he knows Jason Simpson was the killer. No known relation to the Blessed William of Vancouver (and note that he's not yet achieved sainthood, though they say he's on the fast-track).

I can't get interested enough to follow up on this. I saw it on the Fox News site, so I thought I'd put in the link. I didn't watch the show.

You are accurate as always. I have double checked the Canadian Sainthood regulations, and talked to my cousin the archdeacon of Carbonear, N,L., and I am pretty sure he will get to be a saint without having to die first. Fingers crossed.