O.J. Simpson: Guilty, But Not of Murder?

[Galileo Galilei]

O.J. Simpson: Guilty, But Not of Murder?

Posted by David Kramer on May 28, 2010 05:38 AM


For those of you who have no special plans for this Memorial Day Weekend, here is a fascinating video that makes a case for someone else committing the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman (though O.J. was involved in his own way). Keep in mind that the author, like the vast majority of people, believed that O.J. Simpson was guilty—until he started looking further into the case. The video is one hour and twenty minutes long. It starts to become more interesting and compelling at about half way through, so stick with it. Feel free to send me feedback. (Please keep it civil—no tirades against me for posting this.) I will post as many LRC reader reactions to the video as I can.

WATCH VIDEO HERE:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58636.html

UPDATE:

new link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58743.html

STILL A FURTHER UPDATE! THIS LINK WORKS: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795&hl#

[Galileo Galilei]

Producer Update on ‘O.J. Simpson: Guilty, But Not of Murder’

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58695.html

UPDATE:

new link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58746.html

[ctiger2]

Bump!

[Ekrub]

If everything is true in that movie (and I think it is) I don't understand how the LAPD doesn't take a look at Jason. Seems to me that there was sufficient evidence to take him to court with.

[Galileo Galilei]

If everything is true in that movie (and I think it is) I don't understand how the LAPD doesn't take a look at Jason. Seems to me that there was sufficient evidence to take him to court with.

Fred Goldman would have to switch his hatred.

[PatriotOne]

If everything is true in that movie (and I think it is) I don't understand how the LAPD doesn't take a look at Jason. Seems to me that there was sufficient evidence to take him to court with.

Easy to answer from someone who recorded and watched every minute of the trial. If Jason did it then the LAPD would have alot of explaining to do as to how OJ's blood ended up at the crime scene. I.E., the missing 2 ml of blood from the sample taken from OJ.

[ctiger2]

Easy to answer from someone who recorded and watched every minute of the trial. If Jason did it then the LAPD would have a lot of explaining to do as to how OJ's blood ended up at the crime scene. I.E., the missing 2 ml of blood from the sample taken from OJ.

It's called planting evidence. :eek:

[PatriotOne]

Thanks for the vid. A real interesting watch. Like I said above I was totally infatuated with the trial and watched literally every minute of it...not to mention all the talking heads. Consumed every free minute I had that year. If I knew then, what I know now, I would have had a whole different perspective on it and maybe came to a different conclusion.

[PatriotOne]

It's called planting evidence. :eek:

I remember the defense team certainly accused the LAPD salting the crime scene. Back then I thought it was a ridiculous accusation. Now I realize it's practically standard operating procedure.

[Galileo Galilei]

UPDATE:

new link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58743.html

[Galileo Galilei]

Easy to answer from someone who recorded and watched every minute of the trial. If Jason did it then the LAPD would have alot of explaining to do as to how OJ's blood ended up at the crime scene. I.E., the missing 2 ml of blood from the sample taken from OJ.

The jury watched every minute of the trial, and all 12 said he was not guilty. Did you really watch "every minute" of the trial? Didn't miss a single bit?

[Galileo Galilei]

UPDATE:

another new link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58746.html

[Galileo Galilei]

"If a man accuses another man of murder, and the charge is not proven, then the accuser shall be put to death!"

Law # 1, Code of Hammurabi, 1792 B.C.

[Ekrub]

Bump

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I can't find the video anywhere. They made it unavailable? I only see a weak trailer on their website.

[jclay2]

For anyone automatically jumping to bloody murder in the casey anthony case, I suggest you watch the video.

[Sweman]

The jury watched every minute of the trial, and all 12 said he was not guilty. Did you really watch "every minute" of the trial? Didn't miss a single bit?
"Not guilty" could mean "not enough evidence".

[LibertyEagle]

The video is no longer available according to the blog. Only the trailer. They will have the new video up soon, supposedly, and be charging for it.

Who was Jason?

[Galileo Galilei]

OJ SIMPSON MOVIE LINK HERE: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795&hl#

Free the Juice!!!

[Ekrub]

For anyone automatically jumping to bloody murder in the casey anthony case, I suggest you watch the video.

I thought this might be a timely bump. Not saying she didn't do it, just a reminder to be cautious of jumpin to conclusions. Jason is OJs son, if I remember correctly. It's been over a year since I watched the video. Gallelieo you should edit and post the link in your original post if you haven't already

[Galileo Galilei]

I thought this might be a timely bump. Not saying she didn't do it, just a reminder to be cautious of jumpin to conclusions. Jason is OJs son, if I remember correctly. It's been over a year since I watched the video. Gallelieo you should edit and post the link in your original post if you haven't already

good idea.

[Dianne]

I have not read the links, but I have read over several years now that OJ's son committed the murders; and OJ covered up for him.

[Galileo Galilei]

I have not read the links, but I have read over several years now that OJ's son committed the murders; and OJ covered up for him.

OJ did not cover anything up. Once OJ is treated as a suspect, OJ is under zero obligation to tell the cops anything.

[Brian4Liberty]

From another thread:


Not so fast... I thought OJ was guilty of the murders as well, until I watched the video: OJ Simpson: Guilty, but not of Murder. The LAPD thought they knew OJ did it, which made them overlook the real killer. Watch:


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

Thanks VP, time to bump this thread.

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

This is a compelling documentary. It is not proof, and it kind of leads to a split decision as to who actually committed the murder. Was it OJ or his son? Most of it is circumstantial, yet it does add evidence, a motive and capability for OJ's son to have committed the murders. Either way, OJ was in on it.

The other thing it points out is the massive incompetence of the LA detectives and prosecutors, but that is nothing new. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats. OJ and his son both needed to be interrogated at the time, and if the allegations in this documentary are true, OJ's son would have probably cracked fairly easily. The notion that both OJ and his son have anger management issues should not be surprising. Like father like son. It does not prove guilt or innocence either way, but it does make the potential for the violent murders more likely.

[DamianTV]

I hate to say it but I do think that OJ did get away with murder.

Hear me out real quick, because I know that this will piss a lot of people off. Most of this post is not going to even be about OJ, but how the most basic principles of our Legal System work. Even after OJ commited the crime, he was Innocent. That is by the definition of the Law, not by his actions. He is the same as every other human being in this country. He is Innocent until PROVEN Guilty in a Court of Law. Thus, until that verdict came down, regardless of what that verdict was, he was Innocent, even if he did or did not commit the crime. The fact that the Courts could not prove that he was Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt is something we should all hold dear.

Personally, I think the did commit the crime, and because the Court was unable to convince the Jury that he was Guilty Beyond that Reasonable Doubt, he should be found Innocent, even if he did commit the act. The point is, what if it were you or me? What if we were accused of Murder? I have been accused of a lot of things, and am sure that everyone has been in similar situations. Hopefully they were all minor things, like misplacing a report at work, broken something on accident, and not so serious that they would even involve the law. But in each of those cases, if what you are accused of, how would you want to be treated? Would you want to be Convicted by a Trial By Media and not a Jury of your Peers? Would you want to be Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

If the shoe was on the other foot, and you were Guilty Until Proven Innocent, would you want to have to bear the Burden of Proving your Innocence from behind bars? If you couldnt afford super duper Lawyers, how would you reasonably be able to defend yourself? Reasonable Doubt and Innocent Until Proven Guilty puts the burden of proof on the State, not us.

And, honestly, I would rather have 100 men who commited crimes go free than to see one truly innocent man imprisoned for something he did not do.

[Brian4Liberty]

I hate to say it but I do think that OJ did get away with murder.


Did you watch the entire documentary?

[Galileo Galilei]

another book which destroys the case against OJ:

REASONABLE DOUBTS: The O.J. Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System [Hardcover]
Alan Dershowitz (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/REASONABLE-DOUBTS-J-Simpson-Criminal/dp/0684830213

The case was rigged against the defendant but OJ won anyway. An expert on criminal law, criminal appeals, and a person who sat through the entire case tells why.

[justatrey]

Wow, I have to admit this has completely changed my opinion.

I was just your average uninformed observer who assumed he must be guilty, but not anymore. Its scary how we can be so sure of ourselves simply because "everyone knows he did it", without ever really looking at all the facts.

[Galileo Galilei]

Wow, I have to admit this has completely changed my opinion.

I was just your average uninformed observer who assumed he must be guilty, but not anymore. Its scary how we can be so sure of ourselves simply because "everyone knows he did it", without ever really looking at all the facts.

The OJ Simpson trial was the greatest & most successful mass deception in history.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Yeah, Free the Juice... but the setup in Vegas is the very disturbing finale.

Especially the Judge that sentenced OJ. Here's TMZ's video coverage of Judge Jackie Glass, who's set to take over for Nancy Grace (http://www.tmz.com/person/nancy-grace/) on "Swift Justice" -- when we brought up the Simpson case.

O.J.'s Vegas Judge: Karma's A Bitch
http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/19/oj-simpson-karma-judge-jackie-glass-nacny-grace-casey-anthony-swift-justice-o-j-simpson-video/

[Lucille]

Yeah, Free the Juice... but the setup in Vegas is the very disturbing finale.

Especially the Judge that sentenced OJ. Here's TMZ's video coverage of Judge Jackie Glass, who's set to take over for Nancy Grace (http://www.tmz.com/person/nancy-grace/) on "Swift Justice" -- when we brought up the Simpson case.

O.J.'s Vegas Judge: Karma's A Bitch
http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/19/oj-simpson-karma-judge-jackie-glass-nacny-grace-casey-anthony-swift-justice-o-j-simpson-video/

Wow. [Nevermind. She didn't implicate herself.]

Point being, they threw the book at OJ and sentenced him to the max to make up for his acquittal.