@blastofftheshow I think the chance at justice was thrown away by the first trial. Anyone who does not believe he did it is usually very young and unaware of the huge amount of evidence or from LA and brainwashed into thinking that all the evidence could have been planted. However, you cannot plant two types of blood if you only collected blood in one tube. The clothes and shoes were items OJ owned and wore previously and he was lying before we even knew she was dead to cover his tracks.
@mjmitch33 watch oj simpson guilty but not of murder....I will tell you jason did it but i think oj knew but he didn't say anything that is why he tried to escape.....I truly feel in my heart he did not do it
@blastofftheshow Watching lies like that video is not real truth. The people that flipped their stories after they told the cops something else to make money are a joke. The real truth is Jason was at work and went with his lady to watch tv and was not alone until after 2am. Just like Ron Shipp who was the person on the stand that talked to OJ after and confronted him in front of the jury. OJ's blood,OJ shoes,OJ gloves,OJ hair ,OJ lies.. You need to look at testimony not made for money videos.
I thought we finished this over a month ago whe you couldn't explai certain "doubts" i raised. Now your respnse is "it's a rope". Well son I suggest you try to wrap your head around the concept "prove beyond a reaonable doubt". You talking about he owned the gloves, pictures and recepits..Wow..Maybe he owned a pair like that but is there a vin number in a gloove? Come on a month later and still the same stufff. Don't see why you are writing me you can't convince me of anything.
This counter-intel worked to help mitigate white anger 1 man sits in prison for 33 yrs on a misunderstanding that should have been no more than18 mos. The recorder & planner gets no time,GTFOH! I'd recommend you get "PURSUIT OF EXHIBIT 35 in the OJ Simpson Murder Trial" by T.H. Johnson, OMIG investigative team leader, or DOUBLE CROSSED FOR BLOOD by Dr. H.S. Johnson, & certainly view "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of the OJ Simpson Murder Trial" all available at amazon dot com.
You are right..my mind does look at details because I understand that a murder trial requires looking at details.. You're the type of person that soon as you heard about the murders and the first camera showed O.J., he was guilty to you. I gave you all kind of reasoable doubt you can't explain.You can't say he came back to house with the knife and say "case closed". You can't use evidence at his house and when i find a flaw in it say "it doesn't matteer"..na buddy u have to explain!
@1tmproductions no the explanation starts at the murder scene. Stuff that follows him back to the house is icing on the cake. Maybe some details are unknown but that does not mean the prosecution proved he was at the murder scene,left bleeding and had the motive,means and ability to commit the crime. All the other stuff is icing..
Strong evidence.."him making three thumps" when kato never said it was him..a suicide note..so that makes him a killer?l.. a cut on his finger ?parking in the road..whoa "keep an open mind" would have meant nothing to you..and you still can't explain glove bag can you..listen you can't say he commited murder and just stop there..he went back home so I'm sorry you have to explain up to limo driver..and him burning in hell...ok? between him and God. I don't love or hate him..never met the guy lol
I loose anyaway? I don't know your angle but I'm talking about the murder trial..All else I don't care. You are delusional. On one hand the crime scene is the only thing that matters forget the rest of the scenario then you come right back with presenting evidence at his house. That's a person trying to win a debate but you can't win buddy because once you lay out the entire scenario and resonable doubt is presented that you can't explain...ah you loose...but I know you still can't grasp it!
@1tmproductions Your right I cannot grasp something, how the jury could not come to a reasonable conclusion with that much evidence. Your kind of mind holds onto the small details that do not need to be totally explained as reasonable doubt but it a mind that knows science and how dna ties someone to a scene we know OJ was there,was cut,lost a glove, bled to his car,bled to his house,started giving a alibi for the murder before we knew she was dead. All those lead to him holding the knife.Simple
@1tmproductions its a rope son, with every strand of string it becomes more and more impossible for all the facts to point to one person. Had they only found a drop of OJ's blood and the shoes not been his size.. the puzzle would have fallen apart. However the shoes he owned,the gloves we have pictures and receipts,the hair matched his hat,the fiber matched his Bronco,the blood pattern matched his injuries,the trail matched his path,the murder fit his schedule,the lies fit his state of mind.
Also you don't understand or maybe you do but just won't admit that when the prosecution presents evidence and set's a course of action as to how the whole crime took place, then they have to explain it.. When reasonable doubt is raised in their scenario then they have not proven beyond a resonable doubt..They presented the glove at his house in their evidence so I ask you once again explain it! You can't thus skipping past an essential component in order to say he's guilty...WOW
@1tmproductions reasonable doubt in the scenario after the murder does notchange the murder scene and all the scientific and dna evidence that was found in both homes and the Bronco.It does not change his lies, his actions that night nor how he responded when told. All these actions easily point to a person was riddled with guilt for finally showing who he really was as a man and cracking in a bout of rage. He snapped and killed. He will burn in hell is there is one lets hope his death hurts bad
@Stardust607 How did it get blood on it? Blood without edta? OJ matching dna,tested in three facilities... I know your uneducated thought process may have trouble with this but the science of dna is freeing many now. It is freeing those even with the bad collecting and transfer process they used in the early years of dna. You know why? You cannot plant matching blood before a murder unless you have access to that blood prior to the killings.. you need to get over your anger with the white man.
"him being cut the same night as his exwifes beheading two weeks after he bought a disguise is almost enough on its own. Throw in his cuts, hair,gloves,shoe prints, actions after... guilty as sin." So that's what you would base a murder convition on? Wow I'm glad you weren't on the jury. And how do you know swatches werent switched. I ask you again do all tubes have edta in it? no answer..still can't explain your shoe..bag...glove theory? no I know...so he ws suicidal? his ex wife died!
@1tmproductions yes I would convict based on him not being able to explain away any of the evidence that was proven without a reasonable doubt based on science. Your stupid enough to try and argue the case two ways. That the tube had edta and was planted and that the tube had no edta and was planted. lol That is not possible is it? Both? You can believe if you want to that 50+ people were involved in the frame up.. I believe the blood was gathered and because OJ got injured while killing...
@1tmproductions his exwife and her man that he is and was the killer. His injury,his blood,his hair,his fiber,his Bronco carpet fiber, Nicole and Rons blood, his path back to the house, his parking in the road,his trip down the path making thumps,his lies to the limo driver, his apology to police,his running with 8k in his pocket, his disguise,his screaming at Rozie Greer,his interview with police, his suicide note, his statement to the courts all show me a murderer. You lose anyway hes in jail
Once again you want to assume something but when I ask for sppecifics you say I'm a moron. You can't just assume and say "nobody knew where he was at the time and he has a cut..he killed his wife"...No I wan't to know if you are saying he put his shoes in the bag before he walked up the stairs than where was the bag? Spell it out because when you do(which I know you won't) You will see it is inconsistencies and that is reasonable doubt, which means you can't prove beyond it. Get it?lol
@1tmproductions We know much more than we need to. We know he bled at the scene of a double murder and was suicidal after. We know he left several items of clothing behind, took blood into the vehicle seen in the area returned to his house left blood in the vehicle, dripped blood into his home and began lying about where he was before anyone knew his wife was dead. We know he owned the same shoes,same size, rare gloves, fiber from Ron, Nicole blonde hairs on glove with his blood on it. duh
One major thing you DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IS: One is innocent until proven guilty. You wan't to say things like "I could go one but apparently you think the fact that he left little blood or even had help cleaning blood up that that makes him not guilty?" No I think the prosecution( and you lol) not being able to answer questions were reasonable doubt is raised makes him not guilty, and apparently a jury agreed with me. He doesn't have to prove his innocence.you have to prove his guilt!
@1tmproductions him being cut the same night as his exwifes beheading two weeks after he bought a disguise is almost enough on its own. Throw in his cuts, hair,gloves,shoe prints, actions after... guilty as sin.
And you did say rage unlike you I read and recall. I was talking about how Jason had rage and it was a rage killing you came back with the 911 references and said it showed that O.J. had rage issues.So was it a rage killing in your opinion? As far as edta in one tube what?!? Don't even know what you are talking about..All I asked was does every tube manufactured have edta in it? Answer wisely lol. And you write "who cares" obviously you responding to a silly, ignorant, moron lol.
@1tmproductions who cares because with the blood being there and collected and sent to three different labs most know it would be impossib le to remove the dna that was in the swatches and add OJ's blood. That is perposterous. As are you
You keep talking about phyical evidence. Either it is cicrcumstancial meaning no witness or direct evidence meaning a witness...You can have all the physical evidence you want but if there is no witness it is called circumstantial.Do you get it now!? Probably not, but with circumstantial evidence you have to infer which is what you have been doing? Assuming because Bruno Magli shoe print was at scene, it was O.J.'s..assuming because he had a cut and didn't no where from, it came from a fight.
One hand you allude to rage killing? Now I ask have you ever heard a rage killing that maticulous and so well planned as not to get any blood on his stair well..You said yourself he walked back upstairs. Also you assume that every blood vial has edta in it? Does the actual syringe have edta? lol..Once again you cannot answer the different reasonable questions so go back to insults but try to answer the tough questions first.. Why no blood on stairs? did he touch shoes with his bare hand?
@1tmproductions They only took one tube silly. So either it had edta or it didn't both couldn't happen right? I never said rage you did. No clue if he touched bloody shoes with bare hands? Do I need to know that to show he was injured while killing his wife? lol No blood on the stairs because he did take the shoes off and he was not covered in blood as you and the other morons want him to be. He got rid of clothes in the fifth bag so maybe he used that to wipe his hands down enough, who cares
@1tmproductions you continue to avoid answering how his blood got there.. answer that for me since I have went out of my way to explain the obvious to you.. just solve that. Tell me how the police knew he was wearing Bruno Magli that they eventually proved he owned and wore. Tell us why it is important that the glove didn't fit perfect when we know he owned and wore the gloves prior in the same size? Start with those..
Now it's ironic how you want to give me facts about what was found at O.J.s house then when I press you your response is it doesn't matter just what was found at the crime scene. Make up your mind. So are you saying he stilll had the bloody shoes on when he walked in the house or not? If he didn't when did he take them off? Did his bare hands touch? Why no blood on stairs?I know you can't explain how but if you can't that is not proving beyond a resonable doubt. Can you understand this?
@1tmproductions called added evidence. Helps corroborate what we already know. He was at the scene,left blood,hair,fiber and took the hair,fiber and blood with him. He was gone from 930 to 1055, his vehicle was not at home, a vehicle like it leaving the scene, he was injured, had no idea how... I could go one but apparently you think the fact that he left little blood or even had help cleaning blood up that that makes him not guilty?
so the person who thought just because evidence is physical that means it's not circumstancial is alluding to my ignorance. Obvioulsy like circumstancial evidence, you don't understand a criminal trial. You have to prove BEYOND a resonable doubt. I'm giving you examples of reasonable doubt and your explination is "which is more dmamiging a or b." The prosecution must answer all reasoable doubt. You can't. And if I felt someone was ignorant and retarded then I wouldn't send them 40 replies.
@1tmproductions Circumstantial evidence in a series becomes corroborated physical evidence. So many things happen in a series in this case in can now longer be circumstantial. It becomes physical evidence proven by corroboration. To many circumstances all in a row... solidifies the case. Like the Bronco, Not at his house, seen close to Bundy... blood from the scene, also in the Bronco.. corroborates the circumstance making it physical evidence with corroboration.
So from edta to piggly wiggly I see you've run out of ideas so I guess prosecution rests? Can't explain no blood on stairway..can't explain edta in blood...from pickle theory back to you don't know..no blood found on washer..none in pipes..where was bag tha he put shoes in outside? so he carried the bag in with him?lol murdered two and get that clean in minutes..Also physical evidence is circumstancial unless it was an eye witness. When you wanna sound smart best know what you're talking about.
@1tmproductions there was preseumptive test for blood in pipes but no dna was found. So the evidence could not add to the case. However they did find blood trace in the pipes. No he left the bag on the front porch.. remember.. the one he would not let Kato or Allen Park touch, lol
@1tmproductions answer one question for me now... where did the blood from the blood trail come from and why did it not contain any edta? Answer this alone... with actual common sense.. please!
The police could have substituted the evidence while the drops were in the custody of police criminalists,between the collection of the blood drops on June 13th and DNA analysis of the blood drops on June 14th at the LAPD lab. The cotton might have been switched. One criminalist testified that she placed her initials on the packaging containing the swatches, but no initials were found. And ron was super bloody in front more blood should have been on O.J. No way around it.
@1tmproductions Only in a truly ignorant mind can the lack of blood in the murderer be less damaging than bloody footprints,cuts with no explanation and a blood trail that matches the injury that was not explained by the suspect. lol Chest wounds take time to bleed to the surface and to not spew or squirt. The neck wound was done from behind per his FROGMAN training and we do not know how much blood he had on the clothes that disappeared in the bad that was never found.
Can I explain how he doesn't know how he got cut? You are really reaching now..I've been cut before and didn't know how it happened. Now can you explain how wet blood smudges were found on the packaging of one of the five blood drops? This indicates that the pieces of cotton used to collect the blood was wet when placed inside the packaging. This cotton was left to dry on June 13th. It had more than enough time to dry before it was placed in the packaging on June 14th. Explain the wet stain!
@1tmproductions Doesn't matter. If anything was added to the swatch you would get more available dna.. they didn't that sample like all the others was somewhat degraded by the time it was collected. Again with no other dna involved and no edta... means OJ was there that night,bleeding and was involved.
so he took off shoes and put in bag but left the socks there? come on...oh and he washed the clothes that night but not the socks i'll leave them..if somebody did that wouldn't they wash everything they had on..See you wan't to keep saying they found his blood dna but avoid obvious loopholes in the case. No they didn't have a person with matching dna.. the lab procedures were so contaminated that any DNA analysis of the blood was really unreliable.
ok so he took off his bloody shoes and by this poind did he have a glove on? so blood would have been on his hand because the last glove was supposedly dropped outside and since the shoes werent there then he picked the bloody shoes up with his bare hands right? then everything he touched should have had some blood on it. Oh he grabbed them by shoestring huh lol?wouldn't they have dripped soacked in blood ? where were drips? If you wan't to play prosecution you have to answer questions.
@1tmproductions again you ask for details not needed to prove guilt beyond all doubt. We do not need to prove the process after the crime only at the scene. The rest is details. His blood trail leaving is a lock, the blood in his car reinforces the blood trail, the blood at his house shows he arrived home. By the time he got up to his room he had a chance to wipe off and put clothes in a bad that disappeared. Washed a load of clothes and got back down to get to the limo.
Also the five drops of blood contined less than 1% the amount of dna found in a blood drop. Mr. Bodziak tesified that the left and right footprints were on wrong side and he couldn't say of blood dripped from left hand or right hand.also Furhman wrote in his book that the blood looked fresh and he saw no insects on it and the debris under it was not disturbed..Dr. Henery Lee says that the blood patteren was form someone standing and not moving. Did he jump the back fence where glove found?.
@1tmproductions Mr Bodziak tried to use the fact that OJ stopped and walked back (most likely to search for other glove) to make it look like prints went wrong direction. The percentage of dna in the blood means nothing.. as it had no edta and no other dna was involved. Sure dna degrades but the fact that all of the test from three labs match OJ show the facts. No he went to the front door of the house after making the thumps while he was taking off shoes or getting ready to be seen by Parks.
@1tmproductions again, you want to me to show you things that aren't there as proof of innocence when that is not how it works. We know he left so much at the scene and did a nice job changing clothes and getting rid of his murder weapon but that does not mean he was not injured in a fight that resulted in the death of two people. This is not about proving he did a sloppy murder and left all the evidence. This is about him leaving enough to prove he is guilty. His blood and injuries do that.
The testimony was that he hoped the south ence right.. Then why did experts say no foilage was disturbed? Did you know thath blood on one sock had soaked from one side to the other? This could not happen if a foot was in the sock. And why no blood found in bathroom pipes? You say he washed clothes? Did hey find any blood on the washing machine? Did he wash and dry them? Did they find any on the dryer? Was there blood on the staircase? No not one spec. Explain that
@1tmproductions no it happened when the distilled water was added to the sock to remove the dried blood...
he obviously took off the shoes and possibly more before entering and put it in the missing 5th bag that he was so worried about the limo driver or Kato touching. You remember both noticed how protective he was of the bag that was never seen again. Again he was not covered in blood his feet,glove that he dropped in alley may have been but with the killing from behind he avoided alot of it.
@1tmproductions No testimony OJ hopped any fence. It was Furhman that hopped the fence. As for how the blood fell was he moving who knows... we know it is his blood without edta and that he admitted to being cut the night his ex wife was beheaded and he has no idea how he got cut. Can you explain that? He is bleeding and has no idea how? One cut,7 abrasions and he has no idea how?
Before you were saying that they found his hair now hair consistent to his.. Did you know the hair sample taken from him had dadruff and the one they found had none? You say the hair in the car was from same person that's irrelevant. Was it from O.J. is the question. And the hair were just consistent with a black male. As far as a fake mustache I've never heard that but if he did so what? That's that cicumstancial evidence you rely on. The man was famous. Could be disguise to avoid fans.
yeah i know what circumstatial evidence is seeing how my dad has been practicing law for 30 years and I have been going to his trials for 20. Circumstancial evidence is when you make an assumption beacause the conclusion lends itself to his assumption. It requires puting pieces togethor to support the outcome. It can include fingerprents, blood analysis etc and can be effective coming from professionals but if the evidence is tampered the credibility is lost. Direct Evidence is needed.
@1tmproductions again there is no way to plant someone's dna at a scene without having their blood before hand. You would need access to it. Unpreserved blood would coagulate very quickly without the edta so unless you think they have a person who matched OJ's dna in waiting that night just in case someone killed Nicole.. come on.. that is the only way matching blood with no edta would be available still in liquid form. Right?
@1tmproductions lol no those are forms of physical evidence.. maybe you should spend more time in court. wow you ain't fooling me your sleeping in court and your dad would be embarrassed to know your his son. In fact chances are you were adopted and your real father is a bagger a Piggly Wiggly..
Also you said the right glove had all three of their blood on there but his left hand was the hand that was cut so how do you explain why no blood was found on the left glove? And his alibi was he was at home. And was edta free victim's nlood found anywhere in his house? If not I guess he did a great cleanup job from the house to the car right.
@1tmproductions the left glove fell off before the cut. That is why it was not found at the murder scene by OJ and there was no cut in the glove. Simple! You have any idea what an alibi is? No one seen him in that time frame but the limo driver testified his Bronco was not there when he got there and after he saw a person enter the house it reappeared. SimpleNo the sounds of the bumps on the wall and the bags being packed on the porch most likely contained the clothes and a load of laundry done
There is no evidence of where OJ was from 945 to 10:55. NONE>>> The knit cap had hair consistent with that of OJ Simpson. However you cannot use the word match when it comes to hair but all the hair in the cap was of one mapping trait left by the same person. He took off his shoes and washed his clothes. Testimony that laundry was done that night not by the maid or arnelle.. had to be OJ... and again we do not believe he was covered in blood because he killed both primarily from behind.
ive never heard anything saying that the knit cap had his hair in it. Did you know that they never found any picture showing O.J. wearing that type of hat but at least three with Jason wearing that exact syle of hat. also you want to use evidence in one instance and dismiss it in another. dismiss the edta..no.reasonable doubt can hinge on one piece of evidence.you don't need 20 things to suggest reasonable doubt. if theres one piece of the puzzle that the prosecution can't explain that's huge.
@1tmproductions DId you know they had receipts of OJ buying a fake mustache and glue for a disguise two weeks before the murder?
No that is where you are wrong, circumstantial evidence is not a chain where one link breaks the chain it is a rope where if one strand is gone but many others remain the rope stays in tact. His blood at the scene and all the way back to his house is not DISPROVEN by one shred of evidence being tainted.. that is crazy
Right glove had all three including hair from Ron and some fiber from his shirt. Left glove had just the victims and hair from Nicole and if I remember right some dog and Bronco fiber. Been a while since I was asked this so I may be off on the fibers. OJ blood on right glove was on the wrist where he may have dripped it while taking off the glove with his left hand that was cut. No edta!
im not saying the cops did testing for the defense..I'm simply saying if you argue that the defense could have planted it then why couldn't the cops...Maybe I'm mistaken but did the defense go back to the crime scene and find two more blood samples? Out of all the blood that you acknowledge that was found and had no edta..the two that were found later did..assuming your argument tht it could have been tainted later.im asking how ironic is it that the only tainted ones werent found initially.hmm
On one hand you are saying that preserved blood amounts are much higher so on that same hand im saying the blood in one's body doesn't have edta in it.if were talking scientific facts lets be consistent..As far as throwing out the evidence, you must not understand reasonable doubt..You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a ciminal case.,.thas why he lost in civil court cause you don't there... and which glove had all 3 of their blood on there?
@1tmproductions Not reasonable doubt in one piece of evidence but in the entire case... If his blood was at the murder scene,free of edta, with gloves he owned,shoes he wore,fiber from his vehicle,fiber from the victims in his vehicle,knit cap with matching hair, injury.. all that evidence that he was involved in the crime is not forgotten by the mere possibility that something happened with a few pieces of evidence. You seem to want to say edta.. forget everything else.. that is not reasonable
@1tmproductions Being that we cannot say through scientific test that the edta is that of preserved blood and we cannot say with difinitive proof that it was planted by either side I say that evidence is in question. However I cannot say that any of the other blood is in question. No signs of any edta, solid dna mapping,solid amounts of recognizable dna and a 1 in hundreds of million match to a man who had a violent past and anger issues. He has no alibi and left clothes at the scene.
You ask how could levels of edta be so low if they were put in preserve tubes. But I recall you suggesting earlier that the defense could have done it with hopes that the forensic people would come back later and teet.. Now if it is possible that the defense did it couldn't it be possible that the police did it? You say it was so much blood found and edta could be from fingers..now do you believe only 2 drrops would touch the edta on his fingers considering all the blood you said was found?
@1tmproductions Man you do not seem to get it. I do not feel that any blood was planted because the level of edta does not fit preserved blood. Add to that all the blood with no edta I have no choice to believe that the edta was either from something that OJ touched,something already on the fence and sock or something that contaminated the spots because they were found later. So that being the case how is blood with no edta at the scene?
@1tmproductions Do you know who tested the blood for edta? Did the defense test for edta? Why would the cops use blood to plant that was from the test tube and then do the testing for the defense?
chemicals.picked up late added to the samples if any studies showed the duration of time could add edta to a sample im sure the prosecution would have suggested this..you're reaching because there is no reasonable explination. And you say you don't have to prove it...yes you do that's the prosectuions job in a criminal case..with the regular blood found the defense would have to offer valid reason..once edta found then there is reasonable doubt and prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.
@1tmproductions so you throw out all of the blood evidence because a amount of a chemical that was not consistent with preserved blood shows trace elements of edta? Are u crazy? So the glove do we throw that out? It had blood from all three people on it as well as Nicole hair,Rons shirt fibers and OJ blood? Throw that out too?
All of the scientific evidence thrown out? What are you saying?
i am not assuming anything...you are saying all of the blood except for two had no edta. so you are arguing that the natural blood that dripped from his body had no edta in it...ok so if you take that position why do two spots have it...on one hand u argue that the amount is to low but then you won't accknowledege that it shouldn't be any edta in his blood period..I'm asking for a logical explination. also the levels you say are standards for drawing blood medically not planting it
@1tmproductions how would they plant blood with such low levels of edta if all the blood they collected was put into preserved blood tubes? Where did they get blood with only trace levels?
come on now let's be rational...someone from the defense might have gone back and added edta in hopes that the cops would come back...If they were going to do this wouldn't they get a high enough amount of edta to prove their preserved blood theory. Why would they go back and put such a small amount to leave doubt in there own theory and give prosecution an out saying "the amount is to low"?.. also u never answered my question...why was edta not found in his blood in the car?
@1tmproductions again I do not feel we have to prove how that trace elements of edta were found. I think the biggest facts in this case is that so much blood was found with no trace edta elements at all. Again as far as what edta trace that was found it could have been because of how it dripped onto his fingers, or the elements within the sock and paint on the gate or a chemical picked up late added to the samples. Can you explain how the police found blood without edta at all?
The only thing I am saying is if you are going to say that the edta on the sock and gate could have been from mayonise then why no edta in blood in the car? Wouldn't the mayonaise be on his hand before he commited the murder and considering the cut on his finger in your opinion came from the fight, this same edta blood mixture in sock and gate should have been in the car right? So how does the blood in car have no edta and he touches his sock and then edta? Not arguint levels just explain that.
@1tmproductions we have no idea where the edta came from. Could have been from mayo on his fingers and it could have been from chemicals added from the paint and the fabric, could have been someone from the defense going back to the scene to add edta to anything they saw in hopes that the police went back later... maybe that is why the two drops discovered after the initial evidence were the ones with trace edta. However we know it was not high enough to be preserved blood and the rest had none
@1tmproductions what is not explained is how all but two spots of blood have trace levels of edta that are not anywhere near what they would be if the blood was from a preserved tube of blood. So if that is the case the blood was dropped by someone injured in the attack. If it isn't preserved the person that dripped blood leaving the scene was injured in the attack. You cannot assume because two trace elements are found that all the blood was planted. That is a huge jump that cannot be made.
Exactly like u said blood in this kind of attck would be on hands arms front of your body righ..t alot of blood everywhere on you as I said before. As far as the edta i think you are missing my point. the blood in the sock had edta in it right? so why not the blood in the car that dripped from his hand like u said? But if it was from a hamburger like u said and on he sock and the gate then why nowhere else? why not in the car?
@1tmproductions there are many possible explanations to the edta in only two blood samples. Mayonaise on his hands from the big mac left trace chemicals, the sock and the gate were both collected much later leaving the blood on the paint and fabric grabbing chemicals from the items they were on. That is why the edta levels were no where near what they would be if the blood had been treated blood. The FBI testified to that. The levels were not from a reference tube...
@1tmproductions ok so next time you get in the car count how often your arms touch the vehicle. Count how often his chest and front of his thighs and torso touch the vehicle. Are you saying all of the blood in the vehicle was planted? Are you saying that some was so that being the case we have to ignore the rest?
Ok so you say edta only found on socks and back gate right? So taking your pickle theory why none found on the steering wheel? did he drive back home with his legs? I guess he touched nothing else in the house..come on..and as far as stab wound ok maybe it is more internal bleeding i could buy that with one stab..but over 20? after the first one some blood is gonna be on outside..so that many more stabs and only specs of blood. I don't care about O.J. i'm just being objective and not gullable
@1tmproductions The smears of blood of both victims on the side of the console is commonly used to hold your balance when driving fast. Left hand was bleeding on the backside so the blood was running down the back of his hand. Dripped blood in the floor of the Bronco as well as the left door panel and outter door. That all makes perfect sense to me. Again the edta found in the two spots was never proven to be from preserved blood the elements consistent with edta but levels were 100 times less
@1tmproductions even the first one would start to bleed externally eventually but stab wounds are not projectile and would still be absorbed initially by clothing. Once the body was on the ground sure the blood would poor out but not during the altercation. In fact had OJ not gone back to look for the missing glove his footprints would have been less traceable. During an altercation like this you would get blood on your hands,arms and possibly the front of your body, right?
@mjmitch33 what part of your body touches the car when your sitting in it? Your back, your feet and your hands.. right? I am puzzled that people make a big deal out of there not being enough blood when in reality one drop of non edta blood that matches OJ to me proves he was injured in the attacks.. Those looking for more are looking to prove he isn't guilty instead of just using common sense. The facts are there, avoid the bull crap and see it.
co workers paid off after trial any evidence of that? do you know the ones who said otherwise weren't paid?.O.J. having rage: I said maybe. i don't know..but you said who cares if there are no medical records wow..heres the significance :medical records shows that a physician(a trained professional) acknowledeg this about Jason enough to prescribe medicine..911 calls just show someone felt O.J. was in a rage..u could be yell at me and someone call 911..did he get charged after the calls?
Most of the stab wounds were from behind..? didn't follw ya logic.. And edta was found in the car....And you are saying how could timeline allow him to drive over there but not to commit murders?Ahh because it takes a lil more time to drive to a place and kill two people ..be crafty in how you move as to get minimal blood on you, wash car inside wash clothes and then catch flight...than jus to drive and jump out real quick.Where was blood in house?..oh yeah just on socks which had edta in it.
@1tmproductions Find me one piece of testimony where edta was found in any blood other than the socks and the gate? Any actual evidence of that? None if fact in closing arguments that was one of the prosecutions biggest arguments. NO EDTA in anything other than the sock and the back gate. If you knew this case like I do you would know that.
@1tmproductions logic is, if the throat is severed from behind the exposed arteries would spew out onto the victim and away from the attacker. The stab wounds to Ron in his aorta would be more of a internal bleed initially. Wounds the the chest and abdomen are prone to bleed internally. Sure the scene was a mess but at the time of the killing the attacker could have escaped with blood mostly on his hands and feet.
retardation? na I wouldn't throw that word around because people really suffer from that and you don't know me and I don't know you so I won't insult you and will stay on topic. But you said Jason wasn't at the house that night so I guess you were to know that. And a coworker of his says he left at 9:30 and the resturant was slow that night and no way it had 200 people like the reports indicate. And do I think O.J. had rage disorder..myabe.now I'm asking you is it in his medical records?
@1tmproductions coworkers that were paid after the actual trials said that. Medical records? Who cares we have physical,audio and court records of several (9) calls to 911 over the years in situations when OJ was in a rage. So yes it is documented as was his blood,hair,fiber and all the physical evidence in the case.
@1tmproductions lol twisted words.. the comment was up to 200 people that evening. Not all at once. Over the course of the night 200 was possible. However no one involved in this case ever testified that there were plans to eat at Jasons place.. not one!
the police would know the same way we would expect..you said it yourslef the blood was where it was supposed to be. They searched the carafter the saw his finger lol...Plus some of he blood in the car had eta in it and some didn't? explain that..Also you said most blood found on hands and feet right so how much blood was found on the floor? Doesn't make sense to me with all the inconsistincies in eta..the incredibly small time frame and a blood smear or two from a grusome crime scene come on
@1tmproductions yeah where it was suppose to be if you knew the person was cut... at the time they had no idea the person was cut. I guess they just guessed he was and invented blood that matched OJ and planted it there...lol You obviously are trying to convince yourself it was someone else. My mind deals in fact. OJ bled the same night of his wifes beheading... duh His car was seen leaving the area, the lies he used and that Jason's coworkers and lady all say he was at work. geesh
@1tmproductions none of the blood in the car had edta... that is a all out lie. two partial footprints in the car. However the footprints from the scene to the car was fading as it reached the vehicle. You do know that both victims sounds for the most part were from behind right? You do realize that when you sit in a car only the back of your body,hands and feet touch the car..right? Small time frame? How long does it take to stand in a small area,stab a person several times,cut a throat n leave
his son could have washed his clothes at his house...as fas ar the ETA being lower may be true but you gotta explain how eta was in the blood. UCLA did a study that showed that the amount in a big mac( what O.J. ate that night) didn't even register in blood stream. It's more feasible that a guy that nobody came and tested for blood in his car or house and had menatl illness and took rage medicine commited the crime rather than a guy under a microscope that still has reasonable doubt.
@1tmproductions His son was never at his house, EDTA on his fingers from removing the pickle from his Big Mac or maybe even the paint hardening that used edta transferring into the blood as it sat there. Doesn't matter really as only two samples of the many from the crime scene,Bronco and his home all tested as a match for OJ and none of those had edta. You dont think OJ had a rage disorder? lol All the physical evidence at the scene was DIRECTLY linked to ONE person... OJ
Everybody keeps talking about the blood found in O.J.'s car. But the bigger picture is do you think someone could have butchered 2 people and only have small specks of blood in a car ? They could only if they had a very long time to clean thoroughly!...not 30 minutes. Plus only blood found in house was on socks and it had susbstance found in test tubes in it why cause it was planted. The victms blood in his car had same substance. O.J. was there after his son killed them and called him.
@1tmproductions there was blood smears in the car, Nicole and Rons blood on the right side and the blood matching OJ was found on the left side. I wonder how the police knew to plant his blood on the left and theirs on the right? lol If you read the autopsies the testimony was both Nicole and Ron were stabbed and slice primarily from behind. Thus most of the blood would be on hands and feet. Next time you get in your car think about what touches the seat. Blood was where it should be!
@1tmproductions there was blood found in his walkway and in his foyer. As well as a load of clothes that was freshly washed... hmmm? His daughter and maid testified in the civil trial that neither of them was washing clothes that day... sounds like OJ washed a load before leaving for Chicago. Testimony from the FBI stated that the amount of edta was 1000 times lower that test tube blood. Remember that?
@1tmproductions lol so Jason killed them and called his dad, his dad then drove over to Nicoles and walked through the scene, cut himself someone and bled his way out of the scene? Leaving his blood on the gloves and in his car? Most people argue the timeline doesn't fit and you say he had time to get a phone call from his son.. and leave and do that and get back? OK now I have heard it all.. retardation is in your genes son.. get neutered please!
Maybe Jason's boss killed them! Why would he cover up for Jason? Your all nuts, OJ is the killer, Jason may have been there to cover it up or maybe he was involved also. But OJ is guilty as hell! Blood spatter evidence all over the freaking place. OJ's socks prove this. Look at the evidence over 44 blood spatters all over OJ's socks! Mark Fuhrman could not have done this, if he did he is a genius! He is almighty god if he could set that up! He must have extra terrestrial powers. LMAO!
@wiggsy84 There was only one reason Jason tried to change his testimony to save his inheritance. That was why his testimony was completely falsified by his girlfriend and coworkers and that is exactly why the civil trial was a easy choice. When you add the pictures and video of OJ in the Bruno Magli shoes and the testimony of OJ having no idea how he got cut. You gullible people want bad to think OJ is not a murderer but he is, him and him alone.
@wiggsy84 Tell em Wiggsy84. The police had special powers they knew OJ was cut on the left side before he returned with a cut on his left hand. They knew he was a size 12,wore Bruno Magli shoes, they knew he owned Isotoner gloves size xl... man LA police are amazing! lol A bunch of retards acting like OJ is innocent. Let's forget all the physical evidence and worry about where dinner was that night. lol CLOWNS!
@wiggsy84 actually all the real evidence proves jason was at work. Only person that changed their thoughts on this in the civil trial was Jason. Maybe because he realized his money was under attack. That is all that was. If he was really involved he would not be telling people. lol He was at work,OJ did it alone. THe jason thing is just BS>
@mjmitch33 Jason Simpson clocked out of work at 9:45 pm. That is before the time of the murders. Also, his boss told detectives that he was serving over 200 people at the time when the restaraunt doesn't even have a capacity of 100. An obvious lie. Jason Simpson asked Nicole to eat at the restaraunt he was working at that night and Nicole went to Mezzaluna instead, and also stopped for icecream on the way home. The interesting thing was OJ got a criminal defense lawyer for his son that night.
@mentalmastermind You believe these videos and they are made for financial gain instead of legal reasons. The coworkers at Jasons place of work as well as his girlfriend identified his wear abouts. At no point that night was he alone of unaccounted for. Get that through your head. The testimony your listening to is a guy selling books. All of it is a gross exaggeration in hopes that you will buy a book. The Simpsons and the Browns had no plans to be at Jasons restaurant.
I never said that I believe these videos. I am just stating the facts. Everything I mentioned came directly from my Forensic Science class Where I am taught by a teacher who has his Ph. D in Chromatography. He is also used as expert testimony in court because he is an expert. I think he knows much more than you do about the case because it is his job to. We had to study the images from the scene and know everything that happened in great detail. I will tell you this though, OJ knew something.
@mentalmastermind listen, maybe your forensic science teacher should teach you that you cannot plant non edta blood and you cannot predct where a person would leave blood if you do not know they are injured. You also need to understand why these videos exist. You also need to know why Jason all of a sudden tried to make it look like he was involved... he did it to save his inheritance. OJ did not bleed at the scene gleaning up, he cut his left hand while holding the victims, and stabbing. duh!
The reason why I leave most of the information out is because it involves many pages that won't fit in this little section and because you wouldn't be able to understand most of what I would say. This conversation is over. I don't speak to ignorant people that think they know everything. My information comes from a class and your information comes from the interenet. That says it all.
@mentalmastermind Listen, I was in law school at the time of the murders and the trial. You adding things that someone had made fact after the case given out by people who have a stake in the civil case and morons that are making money off this now is hardly evidence. You want to argue in detail message me, you want to act like you got more than you can fit on 300 words because you know his blood was at the scene and he basically admitted to killing by not knowing how he got cut. Rest is excuse
Yes, Nicole was planning on having dinner at Jason's restaraunt that night because Jason was asking her to. I went through the whole crime scene minute by minute. There is much more to it than you think. Also, OJ definately was guilty of something. Murder. I don't know. But I do know the personal history of both Jason and OJ, and Jason tried killing himself with a pair of scissors, stabbed another person, and has a rampage disorder. None of this was shown on the news. He wasn't even questioned.
@mentalmastermind So where did you get your info about the dinner date? Why didn't OJ go to this dinner? You went through the whole crime scene minute by minute? What the hell does that mean? That sentence alone shows small hints of retardation and a lack of an education. Jason was not questioned by whom? Did they need to question him? They did contact his boss and coworkers gave statements saying he was at work and he had no car til his lady picked him up. She stated they were togethr until 2.
@mentalmastermind please show me in some form of testimony or through a witness that their was a dinner planned? OJ never mentioned it, in fact in his interview he stated he did not want to be with the Browns and Nicole that night. Use testimony... bet you can't.
I worked next door to Mezzaluna, I left the restaurant I worked at after 10PM that Sunday night. I knew Ron sold drugs because we would smoke out back, and everyone knows that Gorham is a small street. This is where Ron would pick up drug orders. He was not a big time, but Mezzalunas Managers and other waiters were known to big big time drug dealers. It is no secret that several employees of Mezzaluna were murdered prior to the murder.The night I walked home was eerily quiet, i went down ..
@thebells9 Nope he is in Vegas taking ass whoopins from skinheads and getting raped by his cell mate. Good news is what happens in Vegas stays in vegas. JUst like OJ did!
@ancoloco Most of it is untrue.... made up crap to try to make money and rebuild OJ's image. He is a guilty man who beheaded his exwife. Real sad that you guys are believing this crap.
@mjmitch33 I didn't say I believe it. I just think it's a very interesting theory. I always took into consideration that O.J. wasn't guilty of actually commiting the murders but being envolved or atleast protecting the killer.
@ancoloco Conspiracy theorist. That is all this is. A group of morons that try to make profit off of this case so many years later. OJ was alone, killed two and got away with it because of racial animosity between minorities and the police. No framing was ever proven and way to many facts point to one man. For several years the morons tried to argue he was framed and with all the evidence that OJ provided both before,during and after the murder that is a impossible argument to win. Guilty
It's very compelling evidence. The fact that he didnt go back to the job is very strong. I wouldn't be surprised if Jason and Nicole were messing around. It's possible. This doesn't explain how OJ's blood got there,
@kdj997 Do not believe this crap. Jason's coworkers were talked to in the pretrial investigations as well as Jasons girlfriend. They did make sure Jason was not there. During the civil trial Jason did say he left early but his coworkers said he was there beyond 1030 and his girlfriend said he was at her house the rest of the night. These videos are garbage and you should not believe any of it. Go read trial transcripts. That is where the actual truth was testified to.
But it's interesting about ''means''.What are the odds o.j would have a knife on him at the time of the killings?He had no idea what to expect.But,a chef always carries knives.Of course this doesn't clear o.j,but most likely he covered up for his lunatic son.I mean hell,pablo escobar loved his kids,and would die for them.Think about it.
@TheGatorfan93 two scenarios come to mind. Nicole came out with it because she knew if OJ seen her new white man he would beat her ass or maybe while training with the military for the movie frogman he became interested in knives. We know he killed Nicole exactly how the military training taught him. In stealth, blow to the head and grab the neck and slice from behind with neck extended to get to the arteries in the neck. remember a blonde Nicole hair was found in the glove and knit cap fiber to
@TheGatorfan93 Well if you watched the actual trial you would know that OJ had not only the major cut on his left hand but also 7 small abrasions... look it up. The actual testimony tells the tale. Besides that, Jason went from work to his girlfriends house. He was only alone for about 15 minutes that night and the distance that he would have traveled from his work to Nicoles and back to his girlfriends was impossible to do in that time. Jason tried to lie to save his inheritance.
@TheGatorfan93 You do realize there is a huge difference in the training that hand to hand is and what OJ was trained to do for Frogman right? Frogman is stealth, surprise assaults with death and no sound being the goal. You can get on here and try to deflect from OJ but the only reason Jason was ever brought into this was to try and save his inheritance. As for Jason not being investigated... they had no blood that turned out to be anyones but OJ,Ron and Nicole... hello...
@jjjonse The lady reading the script did a very convincing job trying to make things look suspicious.
The civil trial does have Jason claiming to leave early to help save his inheritance knowing there was no risk at all in the prosecution filing charges or even investigating since they had already proven OJ did the crime.
The dna claims in this video are way off. Jason and OJ would not have a family match in blood. Their DNA would be only a 50/50 match. That is a lie. Cont.
@jjjonse I do hate OJ because it is obvious to me that he committed murder. I tend to dislike people who kill others. Especially the ones that kill family members and leave the bodies to be found be innocent kids. We all should be so angry!
@jjjonse Thanks, it is sad that you cannot answer any of the evidence. That just shows that you are just like many of your educational level deflecting. You want to think OJ is innocent so you come up with anyone else who could have done this. You do so despite no physical evidence and that tells all. I knew what I was up against from the beginning.
@mjmitch33 OMG what a fucking cattle you are. Evidence??! LOL as I said- learn some more on the subject and don´t only get the information, from people who wants to convict him. Then you will understand how stuoid your questions are. It´s not my job to teach you, get busy yourself. But i guess it is easier to blame the one pointed out for you as the killer, instead of finding the real killer. Now THAT is disgusting!
@jjjonse I know the answers, I know the case. You are getting your knowledge from the videos that are nothing more than a look for money from morons in hopes that they convince some OJ was innocent. I studied the actual case at the time. I have since read several books from both sides. No one can answer how OJ's blood is a match and how the injury matches the blood pattern. I can answer all your crap but you cannot explain away the evidence. No one can that is why we all should know hes a killer
@mjmitch33 OJ jumped around with his answers so bad in his police interview. Have you read that? I mean I have seen 4 year old kids handle guilt better than he did. Just hearing that and the statement he made during the chase that he is the only one that should be hurt... that was epic and impossible to explain also. Try if you like, curious as to how you can convince yourself he is being honest in that interview... well?
@mjmitch33 listen I´m not even gonna read, what you are writing anymore. Think what you want, I really don´t care. Have a nice life and think about this: The man who think he knows it all- ís the one, who knows the least. BYE!
@jjjonse Yep another moron like OJ and Furhman. Unwilling to answer the question because they know how stupid their answer will be. You made it easy! Worst debate I have had to date. You need to debate the real world or something current as you clearly have no clue of the actual case. Glad your moving on.
@jjjonse OJ is a murderer. I hope Oprah can pay his kids enough money to get him to confess. If I had enough money I would offer OJ a huge sum of money that he could not use but could put in a trust for his kids to come clean and tell all the clowns that are putting these videos out and morons that buy into them a dose of reality. Beyond all doubt.
@jjjonse That is fine. You judge me as a bad person and OJ as a innocent man. I am thinking that you are just that consistently wrong. I back my opinion with information from the trial and by science that proves that OJ used a knife, gloves,Bruno Magli shoes and a missing fifth bag to behead the mother of his children. He was talked out of his suicide attempt by police, he apologized and stated that he was the only one that should be hurt. He has ignored judges rulings, the justice system and
@mjmitch33 information from the trial. Listen cattle not all information went to trial. If Igot blamed for a murder, I didn´t commit- I swear I would run too! You are just guessing and that´s fine, but you don´t KNOW anything!! Understand that.
@jjjonse Dont we know OJ owned the same gloves? Dont we know he owned the same Shoes? DOnt we know a vehicle like his was seen at the murder scene? Dont we know there was blood to the left of the very shoes he owned? Dont we know he got cut the same night his wife was beheaded? Dont we know his son was eliminated by the blood sample? Dont we know OJ was lying that night before anyone knew he needed to? Dont we know OJ was a raging lunatic when it came to Nicole? Seems like we know plenty, right>
@meginmd We do know that Jason would not match the blood found leaving the scene at Bundy, In the Bronco, at OJ's, or on the glove. At no time was any blood found by either of the three testing facilities that did not match OJ,Nicole or Ron. So we do know OJ was there, nothing was found to tie Jason to the scene at all.
any documented incidents of violence between Jason and Nicole? There were nine with her and OJ. Any of Jasons blood at the scene?
mjmitch33 1 month ago
@mjmitch33 I really don't think oj did it but america needs justice
blastofftheshow 1 month ago
@blastofftheshow I think the chance at justice was thrown away by the first trial. Anyone who does not believe he did it is usually very young and unaware of the huge amount of evidence or from LA and brainwashed into thinking that all the evidence could have been planted. However, you cannot plant two types of blood if you only collected blood in one tube. The clothes and shoes were items OJ owned and wore previously and he was lying before we even knew she was dead to cover his tracks.
mjmitch33 1 month ago
@mjmitch33 watch oj simpson guilty but not of murder....I will tell you jason did it but i think oj knew but he didn't say anything that is why he tried to escape.....I truly feel in my heart he did not do it
blastofftheshow 1 month ago
@blastofftheshow Watching lies like that video is not real truth. The people that flipped their stories after they told the cops something else to make money are a joke. The real truth is Jason was at work and went with his lady to watch tv and was not alone until after 2am. Just like Ron Shipp who was the person on the stand that talked to OJ after and confronted him in front of the jury. OJ's blood,OJ shoes,OJ gloves,OJ hair ,OJ lies.. You need to look at testimony not made for money videos.
mjmitch33 1 month ago
Forget about the glove, the glove was planted by Det. Mark Fuhrman.
Stardust607 1 month ago
I thought we finished this over a month ago whe you couldn't explai certain "doubts" i raised. Now your respnse is "it's a rope". Well son I suggest you try to wrap your head around the concept "prove beyond a reaonable doubt". You talking about he owned the gloves, pictures and recepits..Wow..Maybe he owned a pair like that but is there a vin number in a gloove? Come on a month later and still the same stufff. Don't see why you are writing me you can't convince me of anything.
1tmproductions 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This counter-intel worked to help mitigate white anger 1 man sits in prison for 33 yrs on a misunderstanding that should have been no more than18 mos. The recorder & planner gets no time,GTFOH! I'd recommend you get "PURSUIT OF EXHIBIT 35 in the OJ Simpson Murder Trial" by T.H. Johnson, OMIG investigative team leader, or DOUBLE CROSSED FOR BLOOD by Dr. H.S. Johnson, & certainly view "Serpents Rising: An Independent Investigation of the OJ Simpson Murder Trial" all available at amazon dot com.
brotherap 3 months ago
OJ's blood and DNA were EVERYWHERE. No conspiracy, you all need to let it go.
2507559168 3 months ago
You are right..my mind does look at details because I understand that a murder trial requires looking at details.. You're the type of person that soon as you heard about the murders and the first camera showed O.J., he was guilty to you. I gave you all kind of reasoable doubt you can't explain.You can't say he came back to house with the knife and say "case closed". You can't use evidence at his house and when i find a flaw in it say "it doesn't matteer"..na buddy u have to explain!
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions no the explanation starts at the murder scene. Stuff that follows him back to the house is icing on the cake. Maybe some details are unknown but that does not mean the prosecution proved he was at the murder scene,left bleeding and had the motive,means and ability to commit the crime. All the other stuff is icing..
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Strong evidence.."him making three thumps" when kato never said it was him..a suicide note..so that makes him a killer?l.. a cut on his finger ?parking in the road..whoa "keep an open mind" would have meant nothing to you..and you still can't explain glove bag can you..listen you can't say he commited murder and just stop there..he went back home so I'm sorry you have to explain up to limo driver..and him burning in hell...ok? between him and God. I don't love or hate him..never met the guy lol
1tmproductions 3 months ago
I loose anyaway? I don't know your angle but I'm talking about the murder trial..All else I don't care. You are delusional. On one hand the crime scene is the only thing that matters forget the rest of the scenario then you come right back with presenting evidence at his house. That's a person trying to win a debate but you can't win buddy because once you lay out the entire scenario and resonable doubt is presented that you can't explain...ah you loose...but I know you still can't grasp it!
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Your right I cannot grasp something, how the jury could not come to a reasonable conclusion with that much evidence. Your kind of mind holds onto the small details that do not need to be totally explained as reasonable doubt but it a mind that knows science and how dna ties someone to a scene we know OJ was there,was cut,lost a glove, bled to his car,bled to his house,started giving a alibi for the murder before we knew she was dead. All those lead to him holding the knife.Simple
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions its a rope son, with every strand of string it becomes more and more impossible for all the facts to point to one person. Had they only found a drop of OJ's blood and the shoes not been his size.. the puzzle would have fallen apart. However the shoes he owned,the gloves we have pictures and receipts,the hair matched his hat,the fiber matched his Bronco,the blood pattern matched his injuries,the trail matched his path,the murder fit his schedule,the lies fit his state of mind.
mjmitch33 2 months ago
Also you don't understand or maybe you do but just won't admit that when the prosecution presents evidence and set's a course of action as to how the whole crime took place, then they have to explain it.. When reasonable doubt is raised in their scenario then they have not proven beyond a resonable doubt..They presented the glove at his house in their evidence so I ask you once again explain it! You can't thus skipping past an essential component in order to say he's guilty...WOW
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions reasonable doubt in the scenario after the murder does notchange the murder scene and all the scientific and dna evidence that was found in both homes and the Bronco.It does not change his lies, his actions that night nor how he responded when told. All these actions easily point to a person was riddled with guilt for finally showing who he really was as a man and cracking in a bout of rage. He snapped and killed. He will burn in hell is there is one lets hope his death hurts bad
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Glove was planted by Mark Fuhrman, a Detective who disliked OJ and was trying to help the case against him.
Stardust607 1 month ago
@Stardust607 How did it get blood on it? Blood without edta? OJ matching dna,tested in three facilities... I know your uneducated thought process may have trouble with this but the science of dna is freeing many now. It is freeing those even with the bad collecting and transfer process they used in the early years of dna. You know why? You cannot plant matching blood before a murder unless you have access to that blood prior to the killings.. you need to get over your anger with the white man.
mjmitch33 1 month ago
"him being cut the same night as his exwifes beheading two weeks after he bought a disguise is almost enough on its own. Throw in his cuts, hair,gloves,shoe prints, actions after... guilty as sin." So that's what you would base a murder convition on? Wow I'm glad you weren't on the jury. And how do you know swatches werent switched. I ask you again do all tubes have edta in it? no answer..still can't explain your shoe..bag...glove theory? no I know...so he ws suicidal? his ex wife died!
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions yes I would convict based on him not being able to explain away any of the evidence that was proven without a reasonable doubt based on science. Your stupid enough to try and argue the case two ways. That the tube had edta and was planted and that the tube had no edta and was planted. lol That is not possible is it? Both? You can believe if you want to that 50+ people were involved in the frame up.. I believe the blood was gathered and because OJ got injured while killing...
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions his exwife and her man that he is and was the killer. His injury,his blood,his hair,his fiber,his Bronco carpet fiber, Nicole and Rons blood, his path back to the house, his parking in the road,his trip down the path making thumps,his lies to the limo driver, his apology to police,his running with 8k in his pocket, his disguise,his screaming at Rozie Greer,his interview with police, his suicide note, his statement to the courts all show me a murderer. You lose anyway hes in jail
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Once again you want to assume something but when I ask for sppecifics you say I'm a moron. You can't just assume and say "nobody knew where he was at the time and he has a cut..he killed his wife"...No I wan't to know if you are saying he put his shoes in the bag before he walked up the stairs than where was the bag? Spell it out because when you do(which I know you won't) You will see it is inconsistencies and that is reasonable doubt, which means you can't prove beyond it. Get it?lol
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions We know much more than we need to. We know he bled at the scene of a double murder and was suicidal after. We know he left several items of clothing behind, took blood into the vehicle seen in the area returned to his house left blood in the vehicle, dripped blood into his home and began lying about where he was before anyone knew his wife was dead. We know he owned the same shoes,same size, rare gloves, fiber from Ron, Nicole blonde hairs on glove with his blood on it. duh
mjmitch33 3 months ago
One major thing you DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IS: One is innocent until proven guilty. You wan't to say things like "I could go one but apparently you think the fact that he left little blood or even had help cleaning blood up that that makes him not guilty?" No I think the prosecution( and you lol) not being able to answer questions were reasonable doubt is raised makes him not guilty, and apparently a jury agreed with me. He doesn't have to prove his innocence.you have to prove his guilt!
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions him being cut the same night as his exwifes beheading two weeks after he bought a disguise is almost enough on its own. Throw in his cuts, hair,gloves,shoe prints, actions after... guilty as sin.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
And you did say rage unlike you I read and recall. I was talking about how Jason had rage and it was a rage killing you came back with the 911 references and said it showed that O.J. had rage issues.So was it a rage killing in your opinion? As far as edta in one tube what?!? Don't even know what you are talking about..All I asked was does every tube manufactured have edta in it? Answer wisely lol. And you write "who cares" obviously you responding to a silly, ignorant, moron lol.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions who cares because with the blood being there and collected and sent to three different labs most know it would be impossib le to remove the dna that was in the swatches and add OJ's blood. That is perposterous. As are you
mjmitch33 3 months ago
You keep talking about phyical evidence. Either it is cicrcumstancial meaning no witness or direct evidence meaning a witness...You can have all the physical evidence you want but if there is no witness it is called circumstantial.Do you get it now!? Probably not, but with circumstantial evidence you have to infer which is what you have been doing? Assuming because Bruno Magli shoe print was at scene, it was O.J.'s..assuming because he had a cut and didn't no where from, it came from a fight.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
One hand you allude to rage killing? Now I ask have you ever heard a rage killing that maticulous and so well planned as not to get any blood on his stair well..You said yourself he walked back upstairs. Also you assume that every blood vial has edta in it? Does the actual syringe have edta? lol..Once again you cannot answer the different reasonable questions so go back to insults but try to answer the tough questions first.. Why no blood on stairs? did he touch shoes with his bare hand?
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions They only took one tube silly. So either it had edta or it didn't both couldn't happen right? I never said rage you did. No clue if he touched bloody shoes with bare hands? Do I need to know that to show he was injured while killing his wife? lol No blood on the stairs because he did take the shoes off and he was not covered in blood as you and the other morons want him to be. He got rid of clothes in the fifth bag so maybe he used that to wipe his hands down enough, who cares
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions you continue to avoid answering how his blood got there.. answer that for me since I have went out of my way to explain the obvious to you.. just solve that. Tell me how the police knew he was wearing Bruno Magli that they eventually proved he owned and wore. Tell us why it is important that the glove didn't fit perfect when we know he owned and wore the gloves prior in the same size? Start with those..
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Now it's ironic how you want to give me facts about what was found at O.J.s house then when I press you your response is it doesn't matter just what was found at the crime scene. Make up your mind. So are you saying he stilll had the bloody shoes on when he walked in the house or not? If he didn't when did he take them off? Did his bare hands touch? Why no blood on stairs?I know you can't explain how but if you can't that is not proving beyond a resonable doubt. Can you understand this?
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions called added evidence. Helps corroborate what we already know. He was at the scene,left blood,hair,fiber and took the hair,fiber and blood with him. He was gone from 930 to 1055, his vehicle was not at home, a vehicle like it leaving the scene, he was injured, had no idea how... I could go one but apparently you think the fact that he left little blood or even had help cleaning blood up that that makes him not guilty?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
so the person who thought just because evidence is physical that means it's not circumstancial is alluding to my ignorance. Obvioulsy like circumstancial evidence, you don't understand a criminal trial. You have to prove BEYOND a resonable doubt. I'm giving you examples of reasonable doubt and your explination is "which is more dmamiging a or b." The prosecution must answer all reasoable doubt. You can't. And if I felt someone was ignorant and retarded then I wouldn't send them 40 replies.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Circumstantial evidence in a series becomes corroborated physical evidence. So many things happen in a series in this case in can now longer be circumstantial. It becomes physical evidence proven by corroboration. To many circumstances all in a row... solidifies the case. Like the Bronco, Not at his house, seen close to Bundy... blood from the scene, also in the Bronco.. corroborates the circumstance making it physical evidence with corroboration.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
So from edta to piggly wiggly I see you've run out of ideas so I guess prosecution rests? Can't explain no blood on stairway..can't explain edta in blood...from pickle theory back to you don't know..no blood found on washer..none in pipes..where was bag tha he put shoes in outside? so he carried the bag in with him?lol murdered two and get that clean in minutes..Also physical evidence is circumstancial unless it was an eye witness. When you wanna sound smart best know what you're talking about.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions there was preseumptive test for blood in pipes but no dna was found. So the evidence could not add to the case. However they did find blood trace in the pipes. No he left the bag on the front porch.. remember.. the one he would not let Kato or Allen Park touch, lol
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions answer one question for me now... where did the blood from the blood trail come from and why did it not contain any edta? Answer this alone... with actual common sense.. please!
mjmitch33 3 months ago
The police could have substituted the evidence while the drops were in the custody of police criminalists,between the collection of the blood drops on June 13th and DNA analysis of the blood drops on June 14th at the LAPD lab. The cotton might have been switched. One criminalist testified that she placed her initials on the packaging containing the swatches, but no initials were found. And ron was super bloody in front more blood should have been on O.J. No way around it.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Only in a truly ignorant mind can the lack of blood in the murderer be less damaging than bloody footprints,cuts with no explanation and a blood trail that matches the injury that was not explained by the suspect. lol Chest wounds take time to bleed to the surface and to not spew or squirt. The neck wound was done from behind per his FROGMAN training and we do not know how much blood he had on the clothes that disappeared in the bad that was never found.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions POLICE DO NOT HAVE NON EDTA BLOOD BIG GUY>>>> How can they plant an item they have no access to? Don't you realize that?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions three separate labs tested the blood with the same results. I guess the real killer had no dna... or edta... lol
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Can I explain how he doesn't know how he got cut? You are really reaching now..I've been cut before and didn't know how it happened. Now can you explain how wet blood smudges were found on the packaging of one of the five blood drops? This indicates that the pieces of cotton used to collect the blood was wet when placed inside the packaging. This cotton was left to dry on June 13th. It had more than enough time to dry before it was placed in the packaging on June 14th. Explain the wet stain!
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Doesn't matter. If anything was added to the swatch you would get more available dna.. they didn't that sample like all the others was somewhat degraded by the time it was collected. Again with no other dna involved and no edta... means OJ was there that night,bleeding and was involved.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
so he took off shoes and put in bag but left the socks there? come on...oh and he washed the clothes that night but not the socks i'll leave them..if somebody did that wouldn't they wash everything they had on..See you wan't to keep saying they found his blood dna but avoid obvious loopholes in the case. No they didn't have a person with matching dna.. the lab procedures were so contaminated that any DNA analysis of the blood was really unreliable.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
ok so he took off his bloody shoes and by this poind did he have a glove on? so blood would have been on his hand because the last glove was supposedly dropped outside and since the shoes werent there then he picked the bloody shoes up with his bare hands right? then everything he touched should have had some blood on it. Oh he grabbed them by shoestring huh lol?wouldn't they have dripped soacked in blood ? where were drips? If you wan't to play prosecution you have to answer questions.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions again you ask for details not needed to prove guilt beyond all doubt. We do not need to prove the process after the crime only at the scene. The rest is details. His blood trail leaving is a lock, the blood in his car reinforces the blood trail, the blood at his house shows he arrived home. By the time he got up to his room he had a chance to wipe off and put clothes in a bad that disappeared. Washed a load of clothes and got back down to get to the limo.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Also the five drops of blood contined less than 1% the amount of dna found in a blood drop. Mr. Bodziak tesified that the left and right footprints were on wrong side and he couldn't say of blood dripped from left hand or right hand.also Furhman wrote in his book that the blood looked fresh and he saw no insects on it and the debris under it was not disturbed..Dr. Henery Lee says that the blood patteren was form someone standing and not moving. Did he jump the back fence where glove found?.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Mr Bodziak tried to use the fact that OJ stopped and walked back (most likely to search for other glove) to make it look like prints went wrong direction. The percentage of dna in the blood means nothing.. as it had no edta and no other dna was involved. Sure dna degrades but the fact that all of the test from three labs match OJ show the facts. No he went to the front door of the house after making the thumps while he was taking off shoes or getting ready to be seen by Parks.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions again, you want to me to show you things that aren't there as proof of innocence when that is not how it works. We know he left so much at the scene and did a nice job changing clothes and getting rid of his murder weapon but that does not mean he was not injured in a fight that resulted in the death of two people. This is not about proving he did a sloppy murder and left all the evidence. This is about him leaving enough to prove he is guilty. His blood and injuries do that.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
The testimony was that he hoped the south ence right.. Then why did experts say no foilage was disturbed? Did you know thath blood on one sock had soaked from one side to the other? This could not happen if a foot was in the sock. And why no blood found in bathroom pipes? You say he washed clothes? Did hey find any blood on the washing machine? Did he wash and dry them? Did they find any on the dryer? Was there blood on the staircase? No not one spec. Explain that
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions no it happened when the distilled water was added to the sock to remove the dried blood...
he obviously took off the shoes and possibly more before entering and put it in the missing 5th bag that he was so worried about the limo driver or Kato touching. You remember both noticed how protective he was of the bag that was never seen again. Again he was not covered in blood his feet,glove that he dropped in alley may have been but with the killing from behind he avoided alot of it.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions No testimony OJ hopped any fence. It was Furhman that hopped the fence. As for how the blood fell was he moving who knows... we know it is his blood without edta and that he admitted to being cut the night his ex wife was beheaded and he has no idea how he got cut. Can you explain that? He is bleeding and has no idea how? One cut,7 abrasions and he has no idea how?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Before you were saying that they found his hair now hair consistent to his.. Did you know the hair sample taken from him had dadruff and the one they found had none? You say the hair in the car was from same person that's irrelevant. Was it from O.J. is the question. And the hair were just consistent with a black male. As far as a fake mustache I've never heard that but if he did so what? That's that cicumstancial evidence you rely on. The man was famous. Could be disguise to avoid fans.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
yeah i know what circumstatial evidence is seeing how my dad has been practicing law for 30 years and I have been going to his trials for 20. Circumstancial evidence is when you make an assumption beacause the conclusion lends itself to his assumption. It requires puting pieces togethor to support the outcome. It can include fingerprents, blood analysis etc and can be effective coming from professionals but if the evidence is tampered the credibility is lost. Direct Evidence is needed.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions again there is no way to plant someone's dna at a scene without having their blood before hand. You would need access to it. Unpreserved blood would coagulate very quickly without the edta so unless you think they have a person who matched OJ's dna in waiting that night just in case someone killed Nicole.. come on.. that is the only way matching blood with no edta would be available still in liquid form. Right?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions lol no those are forms of physical evidence.. maybe you should spend more time in court. wow you ain't fooling me your sleeping in court and your dad would be embarrassed to know your his son. In fact chances are you were adopted and your real father is a bagger a Piggly Wiggly..
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Also you said the right glove had all three of their blood on there but his left hand was the hand that was cut so how do you explain why no blood was found on the left glove? And his alibi was he was at home. And was edta free victim's nlood found anywhere in his house? If not I guess he did a great cleanup job from the house to the car right.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions the left glove fell off before the cut. That is why it was not found at the murder scene by OJ and there was no cut in the glove. Simple! You have any idea what an alibi is? No one seen him in that time frame but the limo driver testified his Bronco was not there when he got there and after he saw a person enter the house it reappeared. SimpleNo the sounds of the bumps on the wall and the bags being packed on the porch most likely contained the clothes and a load of laundry done
mjmitch33 3 months ago
There is no evidence of where OJ was from 945 to 10:55. NONE>>> The knit cap had hair consistent with that of OJ Simpson. However you cannot use the word match when it comes to hair but all the hair in the cap was of one mapping trait left by the same person. He took off his shoes and washed his clothes. Testimony that laundry was done that night not by the maid or arnelle.. had to be OJ... and again we do not believe he was covered in blood because he killed both primarily from behind.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
ive never heard anything saying that the knit cap had his hair in it. Did you know that they never found any picture showing O.J. wearing that type of hat but at least three with Jason wearing that exact syle of hat. also you want to use evidence in one instance and dismiss it in another. dismiss the edta..no.reasonable doubt can hinge on one piece of evidence.you don't need 20 things to suggest reasonable doubt. if theres one piece of the puzzle that the prosecution can't explain that's huge.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions DId you know they had receipts of OJ buying a fake mustache and glue for a disguise two weeks before the murder?
No that is where you are wrong, circumstantial evidence is not a chain where one link breaks the chain it is a rope where if one strand is gone but many others remain the rope stays in tact. His blood at the scene and all the way back to his house is not DISPROVEN by one shred of evidence being tainted.. that is crazy
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Circumstantial evidence is not a puzzle.. jeesh you have no clue as to what reasonable doubt actually is do you?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Right glove had all three including hair from Ron and some fiber from his shirt. Left glove had just the victims and hair from Nicole and if I remember right some dog and Bronco fiber. Been a while since I was asked this so I may be off on the fibers. OJ blood on right glove was on the wrist where he may have dripped it while taking off the glove with his left hand that was cut. No edta!
mjmitch33 3 months ago
im not saying the cops did testing for the defense..I'm simply saying if you argue that the defense could have planted it then why couldn't the cops...Maybe I'm mistaken but did the defense go back to the crime scene and find two more blood samples? Out of all the blood that you acknowledge that was found and had no edta..the two that were found later did..assuming your argument tht it could have been tainted later.im asking how ironic is it that the only tainted ones werent found initially.hmm
1tmproductions 3 months ago
On one hand you are saying that preserved blood amounts are much higher so on that same hand im saying the blood in one's body doesn't have edta in it.if were talking scientific facts lets be consistent..As far as throwing out the evidence, you must not understand reasonable doubt..You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a ciminal case.,.thas why he lost in civil court cause you don't there... and which glove had all 3 of their blood on there?
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Not reasonable doubt in one piece of evidence but in the entire case... If his blood was at the murder scene,free of edta, with gloves he owned,shoes he wore,fiber from his vehicle,fiber from the victims in his vehicle,knit cap with matching hair, injury.. all that evidence that he was involved in the crime is not forgotten by the mere possibility that something happened with a few pieces of evidence. You seem to want to say edta.. forget everything else.. that is not reasonable
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Being that we cannot say through scientific test that the edta is that of preserved blood and we cannot say with difinitive proof that it was planted by either side I say that evidence is in question. However I cannot say that any of the other blood is in question. No signs of any edta, solid dna mapping,solid amounts of recognizable dna and a 1 in hundreds of million match to a man who had a violent past and anger issues. He has no alibi and left clothes at the scene.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
You ask how could levels of edta be so low if they were put in preserve tubes. But I recall you suggesting earlier that the defense could have done it with hopes that the forensic people would come back later and teet.. Now if it is possible that the defense did it couldn't it be possible that the police did it? You say it was so much blood found and edta could be from fingers..now do you believe only 2 drrops would touch the edta on his fingers considering all the blood you said was found?
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Man you do not seem to get it. I do not feel that any blood was planted because the level of edta does not fit preserved blood. Add to that all the blood with no edta I have no choice to believe that the edta was either from something that OJ touched,something already on the fence and sock or something that contaminated the spots because they were found later. So that being the case how is blood with no edta at the scene?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Do you know who tested the blood for edta? Did the defense test for edta? Why would the cops use blood to plant that was from the test tube and then do the testing for the defense?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
chemicals.picked up late added to the samples if any studies showed the duration of time could add edta to a sample im sure the prosecution would have suggested this..you're reaching because there is no reasonable explination. And you say you don't have to prove it...yes you do that's the prosectuions job in a criminal case..with the regular blood found the defense would have to offer valid reason..once edta found then there is reasonable doubt and prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions so you throw out all of the blood evidence because a amount of a chemical that was not consistent with preserved blood shows trace elements of edta? Are u crazy? So the glove do we throw that out? It had blood from all three people on it as well as Nicole hair,Rons shirt fibers and OJ blood? Throw that out too?
All of the scientific evidence thrown out? What are you saying?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
i am not assuming anything...you are saying all of the blood except for two had no edta. so you are arguing that the natural blood that dripped from his body had no edta in it...ok so if you take that position why do two spots have it...on one hand u argue that the amount is to low but then you won't accknowledege that it shouldn't be any edta in his blood period..I'm asking for a logical explination. also the levels you say are standards for drawing blood medically not planting it
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions how would they plant blood with such low levels of edta if all the blood they collected was put into preserved blood tubes? Where did they get blood with only trace levels?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
come on now let's be rational...someone from the defense might have gone back and added edta in hopes that the cops would come back...If they were going to do this wouldn't they get a high enough amount of edta to prove their preserved blood theory. Why would they go back and put such a small amount to leave doubt in there own theory and give prosecution an out saying "the amount is to low"?.. also u never answered my question...why was edta not found in his blood in the car?
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions again I do not feel we have to prove how that trace elements of edta were found. I think the biggest facts in this case is that so much blood was found with no trace edta elements at all. Again as far as what edta trace that was found it could have been because of how it dripped onto his fingers, or the elements within the sock and paint on the gate or a chemical picked up late added to the samples. Can you explain how the police found blood without edta at all?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
The only thing I am saying is if you are going to say that the edta on the sock and gate could have been from mayonise then why no edta in blood in the car? Wouldn't the mayonaise be on his hand before he commited the murder and considering the cut on his finger in your opinion came from the fight, this same edta blood mixture in sock and gate should have been in the car right? So how does the blood in car have no edta and he touches his sock and then edta? Not arguint levels just explain that.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions we have no idea where the edta came from. Could have been from mayo on his fingers and it could have been from chemicals added from the paint and the fabric, could have been someone from the defense going back to the scene to add edta to anything they saw in hopes that the police went back later... maybe that is why the two drops discovered after the initial evidence were the ones with trace edta. However we know it was not high enough to be preserved blood and the rest had none
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions what is not explained is how all but two spots of blood have trace levels of edta that are not anywhere near what they would be if the blood was from a preserved tube of blood. So if that is the case the blood was dropped by someone injured in the attack. If it isn't preserved the person that dripped blood leaving the scene was injured in the attack. You cannot assume because two trace elements are found that all the blood was planted. That is a huge jump that cannot be made.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Exactly like u said blood in this kind of attck would be on hands arms front of your body righ..t alot of blood everywhere on you as I said before. As far as the edta i think you are missing my point. the blood in the sock had edta in it right? so why not the blood in the car that dripped from his hand like u said? But if it was from a hamburger like u said and on he sock and the gate then why nowhere else? why not in the car?
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions there are many possible explanations to the edta in only two blood samples. Mayonaise on his hands from the big mac left trace chemicals, the sock and the gate were both collected much later leaving the blood on the paint and fabric grabbing chemicals from the items they were on. That is why the edta levels were no where near what they would be if the blood had been treated blood. The FBI testified to that. The levels were not from a reference tube...
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions ok so next time you get in the car count how often your arms touch the vehicle. Count how often his chest and front of his thighs and torso touch the vehicle. Are you saying all of the blood in the vehicle was planted? Are you saying that some was so that being the case we have to ignore the rest?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Ok so you say edta only found on socks and back gate right? So taking your pickle theory why none found on the steering wheel? did he drive back home with his legs? I guess he touched nothing else in the house..come on..and as far as stab wound ok maybe it is more internal bleeding i could buy that with one stab..but over 20? after the first one some blood is gonna be on outside..so that many more stabs and only specs of blood. I don't care about O.J. i'm just being objective and not gullable
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions The smears of blood of both victims on the side of the console is commonly used to hold your balance when driving fast. Left hand was bleeding on the backside so the blood was running down the back of his hand. Dripped blood in the floor of the Bronco as well as the left door panel and outter door. That all makes perfect sense to me. Again the edta found in the two spots was never proven to be from preserved blood the elements consistent with edta but levels were 100 times less
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions even the first one would start to bleed externally eventually but stab wounds are not projectile and would still be absorbed initially by clothing. Once the body was on the ground sure the blood would poor out but not during the altercation. In fact had OJ not gone back to look for the missing glove his footprints would have been less traceable. During an altercation like this you would get blood on your hands,arms and possibly the front of your body, right?
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@mjmitch33 what part of your body touches the car when your sitting in it? Your back, your feet and your hands.. right? I am puzzled that people make a big deal out of there not being enough blood when in reality one drop of non edta blood that matches OJ to me proves he was injured in the attacks.. Those looking for more are looking to prove he isn't guilty instead of just using common sense. The facts are there, avoid the bull crap and see it.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
co workers paid off after trial any evidence of that? do you know the ones who said otherwise weren't paid?.O.J. having rage: I said maybe. i don't know..but you said who cares if there are no medical records wow..heres the significance :medical records shows that a physician(a trained professional) acknowledeg this about Jason enough to prescribe medicine..911 calls just show someone felt O.J. was in a rage..u could be yell at me and someone call 911..did he get charged after the calls?
1tmproductions 3 months ago
Most of the stab wounds were from behind..? didn't follw ya logic.. And edta was found in the car....And you are saying how could timeline allow him to drive over there but not to commit murders?Ahh because it takes a lil more time to drive to a place and kill two people ..be crafty in how you move as to get minimal blood on you, wash car inside wash clothes and then catch flight...than jus to drive and jump out real quick.Where was blood in house?..oh yeah just on socks which had edta in it.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions Find me one piece of testimony where edta was found in any blood other than the socks and the gate? Any actual evidence of that? None if fact in closing arguments that was one of the prosecutions biggest arguments. NO EDTA in anything other than the sock and the back gate. If you knew this case like I do you would know that.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions logic is, if the throat is severed from behind the exposed arteries would spew out onto the victim and away from the attacker. The stab wounds to Ron in his aorta would be more of a internal bleed initially. Wounds the the chest and abdomen are prone to bleed internally. Sure the scene was a mess but at the time of the killing the attacker could have escaped with blood mostly on his hands and feet.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
retardation? na I wouldn't throw that word around because people really suffer from that and you don't know me and I don't know you so I won't insult you and will stay on topic. But you said Jason wasn't at the house that night so I guess you were to know that. And a coworker of his says he left at 9:30 and the resturant was slow that night and no way it had 200 people like the reports indicate. And do I think O.J. had rage disorder..myabe.now I'm asking you is it in his medical records?
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions coworkers that were paid after the actual trials said that. Medical records? Who cares we have physical,audio and court records of several (9) calls to 911 over the years in situations when OJ was in a rage. So yes it is documented as was his blood,hair,fiber and all the physical evidence in the case.
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions lol twisted words.. the comment was up to 200 people that evening. Not all at once. Over the course of the night 200 was possible. However no one involved in this case ever testified that there were plans to eat at Jasons place.. not one!
mjmitch33 3 months ago
the police would know the same way we would expect..you said it yourslef the blood was where it was supposed to be. They searched the carafter the saw his finger lol...Plus some of he blood in the car had eta in it and some didn't? explain that..Also you said most blood found on hands and feet right so how much blood was found on the floor? Doesn't make sense to me with all the inconsistincies in eta..the incredibly small time frame and a blood smear or two from a grusome crime scene come on
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions yeah where it was suppose to be if you knew the person was cut... at the time they had no idea the person was cut. I guess they just guessed he was and invented blood that matched OJ and planted it there...lol You obviously are trying to convince yourself it was someone else. My mind deals in fact. OJ bled the same night of his wifes beheading... duh His car was seen leaving the area, the lies he used and that Jason's coworkers and lady all say he was at work. geesh
mjmitch33 3 months ago
@1tmproductions none of the blood in the car had edta... that is a all out lie. two partial footprints in the car. However the footprints from the scene to the car was fading as it reached the vehicle. You do know that both victims sounds for the most part were from behind right? You do realize that when you sit in a car only the back of your body,hands and feet touch the car..right? Small time frame? How long does it take to stand in a small area,stab a person several times,cut a throat n leave
mjmitch33 3 months ago
his son could have washed his clothes at his house...as fas ar the ETA being lower may be true but you gotta explain how eta was in the blood. UCLA did a study that showed that the amount in a big mac( what O.J. ate that night) didn't even register in blood stream. It's more feasible that a guy that nobody came and tested for blood in his car or house and had menatl illness and took rage medicine commited the crime rather than a guy under a microscope that still has reasonable doubt.
1tmproductions 3 months ago
@1tmproductions His son was never at his house, EDTA on his fingers from removing the pickle from his Big Mac or maybe even the paint hardening that used edta transferring into the blood as it sat there. Doesn't matter really as only two samples of the many from the crime scene,Bronco and his home all tested as a match for OJ and none of those had edta. You dont think OJ had a rage disorder? lol All the physical evidence at the scene was DIRECTLY linked to ONE person... OJ
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Everybody keeps talking about the blood found in O.J.'s car. But the bigger picture is do you think someone could have butchered 2 people and only have small specks of blood in a car ? They could only if they had a very long time to clean thoroughly!...not 30 minutes. Plus only blood found in house was on socks and it had susbstance found in test tubes in it why cause it was planted. The victms blood in his car had same substance. O.J. was there after his son killed them and called him.
1tmproductions 4 months ago
@1tmproductions there was blood smears in the car, Nicole and Rons blood on the right side and the blood matching OJ was found on the left side. I wonder how the police knew to plant his blood on the left and theirs on the right? lol If you read the autopsies the testimony was both Nicole and Ron were stabbed and slice primarily from behind. Thus most of the blood would be on hands and feet. Next time you get in your car think about what touches the seat. Blood was where it should be!
mjmitch33 4 months ago
@1tmproductions there was blood found in his walkway and in his foyer. As well as a load of clothes that was freshly washed... hmmm? His daughter and maid testified in the civil trial that neither of them was washing clothes that day... sounds like OJ washed a load before leaving for Chicago. Testimony from the FBI stated that the amount of edta was 1000 times lower that test tube blood. Remember that?
mjmitch33 4 months ago
@1tmproductions lol so Jason killed them and called his dad, his dad then drove over to Nicoles and walked through the scene, cut himself someone and bled his way out of the scene? Leaving his blood on the gloves and in his car? Most people argue the timeline doesn't fit and you say he had time to get a phone call from his son.. and leave and do that and get back? OK now I have heard it all.. retardation is in your genes son.. get neutered please!
mjmitch33 3 months ago
Maybe Jason's boss killed them! Why would he cover up for Jason? Your all nuts, OJ is the killer, Jason may have been there to cover it up or maybe he was involved also. But OJ is guilty as hell! Blood spatter evidence all over the freaking place. OJ's socks prove this. Look at the evidence over 44 blood spatters all over OJ's socks! Mark Fuhrman could not have done this, if he did he is a genius! He is almighty god if he could set that up! He must have extra terrestrial powers. LMAO!
wiggsy84 4 months ago
@wiggsy84 There was only one reason Jason tried to change his testimony to save his inheritance. That was why his testimony was completely falsified by his girlfriend and coworkers and that is exactly why the civil trial was a easy choice. When you add the pictures and video of OJ in the Bruno Magli shoes and the testimony of OJ having no idea how he got cut. You gullible people want bad to think OJ is not a murderer but he is, him and him alone.
mjmitch33 4 months ago
@wiggsy84 Tell em Wiggsy84. The police had special powers they knew OJ was cut on the left side before he returned with a cut on his left hand. They knew he was a size 12,wore Bruno Magli shoes, they knew he owned Isotoner gloves size xl... man LA police are amazing! lol A bunch of retards acting like OJ is innocent. Let's forget all the physical evidence and worry about where dinner was that night. lol CLOWNS!
mjmitch33 4 months ago
OJ is definitely guilty, but its possible Jason may have been there too. All circumstantial evidence though. The evidence against OJ is not.
wiggsy84 4 months ago
@wiggsy84 actually all the real evidence proves jason was at work. Only person that changed their thoughts on this in the civil trial was Jason. Maybe because he realized his money was under attack. That is all that was. If he was really involved he would not be telling people. lol He was at work,OJ did it alone. THe jason thing is just BS>
mjmitch33 4 months ago
@mjmitch33 Jason Simpson clocked out of work at 9:45 pm. That is before the time of the murders. Also, his boss told detectives that he was serving over 200 people at the time when the restaraunt doesn't even have a capacity of 100. An obvious lie. Jason Simpson asked Nicole to eat at the restaraunt he was working at that night and Nicole went to Mezzaluna instead, and also stopped for icecream on the way home. The interesting thing was OJ got a criminal defense lawyer for his son that night.
mentalmastermind 4 months ago
@mentalmastermind You believe these videos and they are made for financial gain instead of legal reasons. The coworkers at Jasons place of work as well as his girlfriend identified his wear abouts. At no point that night was he alone of unaccounted for. Get that through your head. The testimony your listening to is a guy selling books. All of it is a gross exaggeration in hopes that you will buy a book. The Simpsons and the Browns had no plans to be at Jasons restaurant.
mjmitch33 4 months ago
I never said that I believe these videos. I am just stating the facts. Everything I mentioned came directly from my Forensic Science class Where I am taught by a teacher who has his Ph. D in Chromatography. He is also used as expert testimony in court because he is an expert. I think he knows much more than you do about the case because it is his job to. We had to study the images from the scene and know everything that happened in great detail. I will tell you this though, OJ knew something.
mentalmastermind 4 months ago
@mentalmastermind listen, maybe your forensic science teacher should teach you that you cannot plant non edta blood and you cannot predct where a person would leave blood if you do not know they are injured. You also need to understand why these videos exist. You also need to know why Jason all of a sudden tried to make it look like he was involved... he did it to save his inheritance. OJ did not bleed at the scene gleaning up, he cut his left hand while holding the victims, and stabbing. duh!
mjmitch33 4 months ago
The reason why I leave most of the information out is because it involves many pages that won't fit in this little section and because you wouldn't be able to understand most of what I would say. This conversation is over. I don't speak to ignorant people that think they know everything. My information comes from a class and your information comes from the interenet. That says it all.
mentalmastermind 4 months ago
@mentalmastermind Listen, I was in law school at the time of the murders and the trial. You adding things that someone had made fact after the case given out by people who have a stake in the civil case and morons that are making money off this now is hardly evidence. You want to argue in detail message me, you want to act like you got more than you can fit on 300 words because you know his blood was at the scene and he basically admitted to killing by not knowing how he got cut. Rest is excuse
mjmitch33 4 months ago
Yes, Nicole was planning on having dinner at Jason's restaraunt that night because Jason was asking her to. I went through the whole crime scene minute by minute. There is much more to it than you think. Also, OJ definately was guilty of something. Murder. I don't know. But I do know the personal history of both Jason and OJ, and Jason tried killing himself with a pair of scissors, stabbed another person, and has a rampage disorder. None of this was shown on the news. He wasn't even questioned.
mentalmastermind 4 months ago
@mentalmastermind So where did you get your info about the dinner date? Why didn't OJ go to this dinner? You went through the whole crime scene minute by minute? What the hell does that mean? That sentence alone shows small hints of retardation and a lack of an education. Jason was not questioned by whom? Did they need to question him? They did contact his boss and coworkers gave statements saying he was at work and he had no car til his lady picked him up. She stated they were togethr until 2.
mjmitch33 4 months ago
@mentalmastermind please show me in some form of testimony or through a witness that their was a dinner planned? OJ never mentioned it, in fact in his interview he stated he did not want to be with the Browns and Nicole that night. Use testimony... bet you can't.
mjmitch33 4 months ago
Is.this.high.pitch.mike.talking.lol
603ports603 5 months ago
I worked next door to Mezzaluna, I left the restaurant I worked at after 10PM that Sunday night. I knew Ron sold drugs because we would smoke out back, and everyone knows that Gorham is a small street. This is where Ron would pick up drug orders. He was not a big time, but Mezzalunas Managers and other waiters were known to big big time drug dealers. It is no secret that several employees of Mezzaluna were murdered prior to the murder.The night I walked home was eerily quiet, i went down ..
resistingsoc 5 months ago
OJ is more guilty then anyone could ever be
worldofwarcraftowns1 5 months ago
Bunch of Racists...OJ was innocent. And so was his son. The real killer still out there.
thebells9 6 months ago
@thebells9 Nope he is in Vegas taking ass whoopins from skinheads and getting raped by his cell mate. Good news is what happens in Vegas stays in vegas. JUst like OJ did!
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@thebells9 what the fuck OJ is guilty and it's more than obvious
levesquemichaels 6 months ago
WOW !!! I never knew about this. Very interesting.
ancoloco 6 months ago
@ancoloco Most of it is untrue.... made up crap to try to make money and rebuild OJ's image. He is a guilty man who beheaded his exwife. Real sad that you guys are believing this crap.
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 I didn't say I believe it. I just think it's a very interesting theory. I always took into consideration that O.J. wasn't guilty of actually commiting the murders but being envolved or atleast protecting the killer.
ancoloco 6 months ago
@ancoloco Conspiracy theorist. That is all this is. A group of morons that try to make profit off of this case so many years later. OJ was alone, killed two and got away with it because of racial animosity between minorities and the police. No framing was ever proven and way to many facts point to one man. For several years the morons tried to argue he was framed and with all the evidence that OJ provided both before,during and after the murder that is a impossible argument to win. Guilty
mjmitch33 6 months ago
It's very compelling evidence. The fact that he didnt go back to the job is very strong. I wouldn't be surprised if Jason and Nicole were messing around. It's possible. This doesn't explain how OJ's blood got there,
kdj997 6 months ago
@kdj997 Do not believe this crap. Jason's coworkers were talked to in the pretrial investigations as well as Jasons girlfriend. They did make sure Jason was not there. During the civil trial Jason did say he left early but his coworkers said he was there beyond 1030 and his girlfriend said he was at her house the rest of the night. These videos are garbage and you should not believe any of it. Go read trial transcripts. That is where the actual truth was testified to.
mjmitch33 6 months ago
Is this High Pitch Mike from Howard Stern?
kdj997 6 months ago
I also think Jason was the culprit.
All those years ago there was an astounding documentary outlining the police handling of the case.
This including video footage of the mishandling of the crime scene.
They covered many of the same issues this video does in addition.
Jason Simpson was not even interviewed by police following the double homicide.
No, the police had their man. The most likely suspect.
I wish I had've taped that documentary. I wish I could see it again.
It convinced me.
Mookymoos 7 months ago
wow
nwez2 7 months ago
But it's interesting about ''means''.What are the odds o.j would have a knife on him at the time of the killings?He had no idea what to expect.But,a chef always carries knives.Of course this doesn't clear o.j,but most likely he covered up for his lunatic son.I mean hell,pablo escobar loved his kids,and would die for them.Think about it.
TheGatorfan93 7 months ago
@TheGatorfan93 two scenarios come to mind. Nicole came out with it because she knew if OJ seen her new white man he would beat her ass or maybe while training with the military for the movie frogman he became interested in knives. We know he killed Nicole exactly how the military training taught him. In stealth, blow to the head and grab the neck and slice from behind with neck extended to get to the arteries in the neck. remember a blonde Nicole hair was found in the glove and knit cap fiber to
mjmitch33 7 months ago
@mjmitch33 His son had training in hand to hand combat as well.And judging by goldman's hands,he had to have left some marks on o.j,where are they?
TheGatorfan93 7 months ago
@TheGatorfan93 Well if you watched the actual trial you would know that OJ had not only the major cut on his left hand but also 7 small abrasions... look it up. The actual testimony tells the tale. Besides that, Jason went from work to his girlfriends house. He was only alone for about 15 minutes that night and the distance that he would have traveled from his work to Nicoles and back to his girlfriends was impossible to do in that time. Jason tried to lie to save his inheritance.
mjmitch33 7 months ago
@mjmitch33 Don;t bother arguing with this dude. He refuses to believe anything that doesn't prove Jason did it.
Just leave him alone in his delusions. After all, this is the guy that blocked me because I proved how DNA excluded Jason as a suspect.
meginmd 7 months ago
@TheGatorfan93 You do realize there is a huge difference in the training that hand to hand is and what OJ was trained to do for Frogman right? Frogman is stealth, surprise assaults with death and no sound being the goal. You can get on here and try to deflect from OJ but the only reason Jason was ever brought into this was to try and save his inheritance. As for Jason not being investigated... they had no blood that turned out to be anyones but OJ,Ron and Nicole... hello...
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 did u even listen to what they said in the video?!!!
jjjonse 6 months ago
@jjjonse The lady reading the script did a very convincing job trying to make things look suspicious.
The civil trial does have Jason claiming to leave early to help save his inheritance knowing there was no risk at all in the prosecution filing charges or even investigating since they had already proven OJ did the crime.
The dna claims in this video are way off. Jason and OJ would not have a family match in blood. Their DNA would be only a 50/50 match. That is a lie. Cont.
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 you don´t want the truth! You just wanna blame OJ! Like the police.
jjjonse 6 months ago
@jjjonse I do hate OJ because it is obvious to me that he committed murder. I tend to dislike people who kill others. Especially the ones that kill family members and leave the bodies to be found be innocent kids. We all should be so angry!
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 Listen, you are too stupid for me. Have a nice life.
jjjonse 6 months ago
@jjjonse Thanks, it is sad that you cannot answer any of the evidence. That just shows that you are just like many of your educational level deflecting. You want to think OJ is innocent so you come up with anyone else who could have done this. You do so despite no physical evidence and that tells all. I knew what I was up against from the beginning.
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 OMG what a fucking cattle you are. Evidence??! LOL as I said- learn some more on the subject and don´t only get the information, from people who wants to convict him. Then you will understand how stuoid your questions are. It´s not my job to teach you, get busy yourself. But i guess it is easier to blame the one pointed out for you as the killer, instead of finding the real killer. Now THAT is disgusting!
jjjonse 6 months ago
@jjjonse I know the answers, I know the case. You are getting your knowledge from the videos that are nothing more than a look for money from morons in hopes that they convince some OJ was innocent. I studied the actual case at the time. I have since read several books from both sides. No one can answer how OJ's blood is a match and how the injury matches the blood pattern. I can answer all your crap but you cannot explain away the evidence. No one can that is why we all should know hes a killer
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 OJ jumped around with his answers so bad in his police interview. Have you read that? I mean I have seen 4 year old kids handle guilt better than he did. Just hearing that and the statement he made during the chase that he is the only one that should be hurt... that was epic and impossible to explain also. Try if you like, curious as to how you can convince yourself he is being honest in that interview... well?
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 listen I´m not even gonna read, what you are writing anymore. Think what you want, I really don´t care. Have a nice life and think about this: The man who think he knows it all- ís the one, who knows the least. BYE!
jjjonse 6 months ago
@jjjonse Yep another moron like OJ and Furhman. Unwilling to answer the question because they know how stupid their answer will be. You made it easy! Worst debate I have had to date. You need to debate the real world or something current as you clearly have no clue of the actual case. Glad your moving on.
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@jjjonse OJ is a murderer. I hope Oprah can pay his kids enough money to get him to confess. If I had enough money I would offer OJ a huge sum of money that he could not use but could put in a trust for his kids to come clean and tell all the clowns that are putting these videos out and morons that buy into them a dose of reality. Beyond all doubt.
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 u r one sorry piece of shit!
jjjonse 6 months ago
@jjjonse That is fine. You judge me as a bad person and OJ as a innocent man. I am thinking that you are just that consistently wrong. I back my opinion with information from the trial and by science that proves that OJ used a knife, gloves,Bruno Magli shoes and a missing fifth bag to behead the mother of his children. He was talked out of his suicide attempt by police, he apologized and stated that he was the only one that should be hurt. He has ignored judges rulings, the justice system and
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 get smarter.
jjjonse 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 information from the trial. Listen cattle not all information went to trial. If Igot blamed for a murder, I didn´t commit- I swear I would run too! You are just guessing and that´s fine, but you don´t KNOW anything!! Understand that.
jjjonse 6 months ago
@jjjonse Dont we know OJ owned the same gloves? Dont we know he owned the same Shoes? DOnt we know a vehicle like his was seen at the murder scene? Dont we know there was blood to the left of the very shoes he owned? Dont we know he got cut the same night his wife was beheaded? Dont we know his son was eliminated by the blood sample? Dont we know OJ was lying that night before anyone knew he needed to? Dont we know OJ was a raging lunatic when it came to Nicole? Seems like we know plenty, right>
mjmitch33 6 months ago
@mjmitch33 His son was eliminated by blood sample? Really? I didn't know that.
(and this isn't sarcasm)
meginmd 5 months ago
@meginmd We do know that Jason would not match the blood found leaving the scene at Bundy, In the Bronco, at OJ's, or on the glove. At no time was any blood found by either of the three testing facilities that did not match OJ,Nicole or Ron. So we do know OJ was there, nothing was found to tie Jason to the scene at all.
mjmitch33 5 months ago