Maybe O.J. Didn't Do It.
- Thread starter meesterperfect
- Start date
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
thank you ulysses but f. lee bailey is full of shit.
he is saying that there was a witness who saw 2 people in a confrontation with a person resembling niicole brown and it was over a drug debt.
they didnt put him on the stand because they were worried about time?
yeah ok, and i'm the duke of buckingham.
he wrote that for a book that never was published, motivation: money.
with his record he has 0 credibility.
he is saying that there was a witness who saw 2 people in a confrontation with a person resembling niicole brown and it was over a drug debt.
they didnt put him on the stand because they were worried about time?
yeah ok, and i'm the duke of buckingham.
he wrote that for a book that never was published, motivation: money.
with his record he has 0 credibility.
Ok thanks. 'New' breakthrough information always seems to get leaked when a book is about to be released.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
did anyone here even watch the damn video i posted in the OP?
yeah I didn't think so!
yeah I didn't think so!
I remember the trial, but I was pretty young at the time. I really don't know much about this case.
I do have some general knowledge about crimes from studying other investigations and police procedure, as well as familiarity with amateur detectives.
In the OJ case,as in all cases, the only people who know for sure what happened are the killer and the victim.
The thing to keep in mind is how a case is solved. There are three ways.
-Evidence linking the suspect to the murder is found.
-Testimony from the suspect is given consistent with the evidence found at the crime scene. In other words a verifiable confession.
-Investigators create a theory based on the evidence and witness testimony to connect the suspect to the crime scene.
Unfortunately many crimes, and most high-profile ones are not solved the first two ways for lack of opportunity. Since it is a theory worked out by people who were not there during the crime it is based largely on things that cannot be proven and is more about convincing a jury to vote guilty than about documenting the truth. That means that much of the information is likely to be incorrect and that innocent people may go to prison.
That is the flaw in the justice system. The police gather the evidence from a crime scene and investigate witnesses and suspects to try to connect them to the evidence. If they feel that they have done a sufficient job in doing so, they arrest the person and he goes to trial. The police do not prove a persons guilt, that's up to the prosecuting attorney. the attorney and his investigators have to establish the circumstances to show the suspects guilt, but they were not part of the process that led to his arrest. In other words they don't collect evidence and they have to go with what they have. They may uncover new evidence, but it is very specific in the conditions under which it may be admitted into the trial.
Amateur investigators or "detectives" are the worst because they don't have to follow any procedure and are usually not involved with the case in any way. They often make accusations based on pure speculation and can have very real and damaging consequences for innocent people that they accuse of crimes.
In all investigations it is important to focus on the evidence and make that be the basis for the case. Often times people make the mistake of coming up with a theory and then trying to manipulate the evidence to make it fit, instead of the other way around.
People seem to be confused on what exactly evidence is. Evidence is a physical material that connects a person or a thing to a crime scene.
The site that Meester posted claimed to have over 100 pieces of evidence, but in reality it presented none.
Testimony from witness is not evidence, it's just what someone says.
Anything that is unrelated to the crime is not evidence. "OJ beat up his wife in 1989" not evidence.
"Evidence #XXX, blood sample taken from scene. Mentioned in police report #XXX, by officer XXX" is evidence.
"OJ's blood was found" is NOT evidence. That's just a statement claiming that evidence may exist.
I do have some general knowledge about crimes from studying other investigations and police procedure, as well as familiarity with amateur detectives.
In the OJ case,as in all cases, the only people who know for sure what happened are the killer and the victim.
The thing to keep in mind is how a case is solved. There are three ways.
-Evidence linking the suspect to the murder is found.
-Testimony from the suspect is given consistent with the evidence found at the crime scene. In other words a verifiable confession.
-Investigators create a theory based on the evidence and witness testimony to connect the suspect to the crime scene.
Unfortunately many crimes, and most high-profile ones are not solved the first two ways for lack of opportunity. Since it is a theory worked out by people who were not there during the crime it is based largely on things that cannot be proven and is more about convincing a jury to vote guilty than about documenting the truth. That means that much of the information is likely to be incorrect and that innocent people may go to prison.
That is the flaw in the justice system. The police gather the evidence from a crime scene and investigate witnesses and suspects to try to connect them to the evidence. If they feel that they have done a sufficient job in doing so, they arrest the person and he goes to trial. The police do not prove a persons guilt, that's up to the prosecuting attorney. the attorney and his investigators have to establish the circumstances to show the suspects guilt, but they were not part of the process that led to his arrest. In other words they don't collect evidence and they have to go with what they have. They may uncover new evidence, but it is very specific in the conditions under which it may be admitted into the trial.
Amateur investigators or "detectives" are the worst because they don't have to follow any procedure and are usually not involved with the case in any way. They often make accusations based on pure speculation and can have very real and damaging consequences for innocent people that they accuse of crimes.
In all investigations it is important to focus on the evidence and make that be the basis for the case. Often times people make the mistake of coming up with a theory and then trying to manipulate the evidence to make it fit, instead of the other way around.
People seem to be confused on what exactly evidence is. Evidence is a physical material that connects a person or a thing to a crime scene.
The site that Meester posted claimed to have over 100 pieces of evidence, but in reality it presented none.
Testimony from witness is not evidence, it's just what someone says.
Anything that is unrelated to the crime is not evidence. "OJ beat up his wife in 1989" not evidence.
"Evidence #XXX, blood sample taken from scene. Mentioned in police report #XXX, by officer XXX" is evidence.
"OJ's blood was found" is NOT evidence. That's just a statement claiming that evidence may exist.
3 comments to share, none of any particular significance
1- my girlfriend and I were living in Westwood at the time, but on the night of the murders we decided to take a short drive over to Brentwood to take a walk up Birmingham Street north of Sunset. All of the streets in that area are beautiful walk streets. On the way back to the car we detoured one block over to Rockingham so I could show her O.J.'s house. So we ended up walking past his home about an hour after the murders.
2 - I was one of thousands of motorists who got stuck behind the low speed pursuit on the San Diego freeway. I was on my way home from work. Talk about a surreal scene.....gawkers were draped all over the overpasses, and there was a big crowd milling around at the Sunset Blvd offramp. My God, what a circus!
3 - I played cards (gin rummy) a number of times with a group of guys that included OJ at his CC. So I was acquainted with him at the time. I would not profess to have known him well, but I did know him well enough to observe a) he had quite a temper, b) he was intensely competitive and c) Nicole knew exactly how to push his buttons.
1- my girlfriend and I were living in Westwood at the time, but on the night of the murders we decided to take a short drive over to Brentwood to take a walk up Birmingham Street north of Sunset. All of the streets in that area are beautiful walk streets. On the way back to the car we detoured one block over to Rockingham so I could show her O.J.'s house. So we ended up walking past his home about an hour after the murders.
2 - I was one of thousands of motorists who got stuck behind the low speed pursuit on the San Diego freeway. I was on my way home from work. Talk about a surreal scene.....gawkers were draped all over the overpasses, and there was a big crowd milling around at the Sunset Blvd offramp. My God, what a circus!
3 - I played cards (gin rummy) a number of times with a group of guys that included OJ at his CC. So I was acquainted with him at the time. I would not profess to have known him well, but I did know him well enough to observe a) he had quite a temper, b) he was intensely competitive and c) Nicole knew exactly how to push his buttons.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
you played cards with OJ?
Simpson?
whats CC?
Simpson?
whats CC?
I'm going to take an educated stab at it......CC stands for Country Club.
yes, country club
yes.
team gin rummy.
2 on 2, 3 on 3, 4 on 4.
there was also a way to play with 5 if an even number of players wasn't present.
yes.
team gin rummy.
2 on 2, 3 on 3, 4 on 4.
there was also a way to play with 5 if an even number of players wasn't present.
Similar threads
- Locked
