Now that he's home, try O.J. Simpson Re-Visited... A Line Drawn In The Sand
Christopher Darden ... "In Contempt"
SoCoOL Visitors Respond To O.J. Simpson
OJ Visitors Respond To OJ 4 Ever
SoCoOL introduces The SoCoOL Interview
Who the Hell is Charles Grodin?
Incredibly enough, SoCô¿ôL is still receiving EMail about O.J. Simpson, four years later. Here's a particularly interesting one.
From: email@example.com (John Jacques)
Subject: OJ COMMENTS
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by John Jacques (firstname.lastname@example.org) on Sat Oct 9 20:35:26 PDT 1999
body: "Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
The above statement was made by John Adams, American patriot,1770, in defense of British soldiers accused of murder in the "Boston Massacre". Adams, much to the displeasure of his fellow Bostonians, succeeded in winning acquittals for the British soldiers. The jury was accused of being rigged for the defense. The justice system was thought corrupt.
The same is still true today. As Yogi said, "It's deja vu all over again."
Fact: At 10:30 PM on 12 June, 1994 a woman called the Wilshire division of the Los Angeles police department, falsely identified herself as being with Channel 4 News, and asked if there had been a double murder reported in West Los Angeles. Sergeant Steve Merrin, who handled the call and recorded it in the duty log, remembered the unusual phrasing used by the woman. He recalled her asking about "sitting" bodies.
Fact: At 11:55 PM on 12 June, 1994, the murdered bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were discovered by neighbors near the front gate of Ms Brown's condominium on Bundy drive in the West Los Angeles suburb of Brentwood. Mr. Goldman's body was found in a "sitting" position.
Fact: There were no other double murders in West Los Angeles that day.
These are facts. To any reasonable person, they are related.
When I first learned about this telephone call I was dumbfounded. The call had come in to the police within minutes of the murders. It showed that a woman had knowledge of the murders nearly an hour and a half before the bodies were discovered by neighbors and officially reported, and yet this call was never fully investigated nor presented by either side in the murder trial.
From her call, what facts could I learn about this woman? First, she did not want her identity known. Second, she had specific knowledge that the crimes had been committed. Third, her interest was focused on the body of Ron Goldman. Fourth she did not want to report the crimes herself. Fifth, she knew or suspected that another person had been at the crime scene. Sixth, she wanted confirmation whether or not that person had reported the murders. Seventh, the timing of her call indicated that there was some immediate urgency for her to obtain this information.
More facts: At 10:45 PM, someone pounded hard, three times on the back wall of Brian "Kato" Kaelin's bungalow on O.J. Simpson's estate in Brentwood. The following morning a bloody glove, involved in the murders, was found on the walkway directly behind Kaelin's room.
Even more facts: Ronald Goldman's body had a lipstick smear on the cheek. It was not Nicole Simpson's lipstick.
Adams was right. Facts are indeed "stubborn things". A good portion of the next three years of my life would be spent in sorting out these facts.
How are these facts related? Who was the woman and why did she call?
Is it possible that someone other than O. J. Simpson committed these murders?
Many have rejected the possibility that Mr. Simpson might be innocent of murder, and having done so can never unravel the mystery surrounding this phone call and many other unreported or uninvestigated facts related to the case. These people become like the man trying to assemble a strand of pearls on a string that is too short. There is no way he can put the string together without discarding some of the pearls. In order to solve this mystery without throwing away pearls, I would need a longer string.
I was faced with a dilemma. The physical evidence against Mr. Simpson was overwhelming. To any reasonable person his guilt was obvious. How could I possibly support a hypothesis that flew in the face of this "mountain of evidence", a hypothesis based solely on a single phone call? I realized that the only solution to my dilemma lay in the answer to a simple question. "If O. J. Simpson didn't do it, then who did?"
Thus, armed with the only tools at my disposal, my mind, my computer, several book stores and the local library, I set out to discover what really happened in Brentwood on the night of June 12th, 1994.
After reading nearly forty thousand pages of testimony and more than a dozen books written on the subject by those closest to the events; after pouring over hundreds of photographs, video tapes and maps; after spending innumerable hours in front of my computer and devoting a portion of almost every day to pure "think time"; I have, to my satisfaction, resolved my dilemma and answered the questions as to, not only who, quite probably, actually did kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, but also, how O. J. Simpson could manage to leave that mountain of incriminating evidence and still be innocent of murder.
My investigation was an attempt to discern the truth of this tragedy from a logical perspective. A distillation of that research has resulted in a new theory about these tragic murders.
It has been said that "...truth is eternal and is superior to reason in the sense that it cannot be created or modified by reason. Nevertheless truths are to be estimated and compared by the exercise of reason." To the results of my investigation I will not commit hubris by attaching the label of truth. It is only a theory supported by testimony, physical evidence and reason. It does, however, deserve the same weight of consideration as does the theory advocating Mr. Simpson's guilt, in as much as they both share the same body of evidence and testimony. This theory, however, takes into account all of the available evidence, including that which points to the possibility that someone other than O. J. Simpson committed this crime.
I do not dispute the authenticity of the physical evidence presented against Mr. Simpson. Nor do I promote any theory of misconduct or malfeasance on the part of the Los Angeles Police Department or any other government agency or individual.
In areas where hard facts were not available or as yet undiscovered, I filled in with suppositions of time and circumstance based on logic and common sense. This perceived fiction can be affirmed or denied only through a rigorous reinvestigation of all facts, evidence and testimony, including that which is unavailable to the general public, with a new focus and direction.
I am initiating this correspondence to see if my theory holds water with reasonable, thinking people. If I can convince some of you that my theory has considerable merit then I will persue it to the next level. If I am proven to be wrong, my apologies. However, if proven to be right...
I would like to conduct this correspondence in a question and answer format. You ask a question and I will give you an answer based on evidence, testimony, published sources, logic and common sense. I will also reference all evidence, testimony and sources.
I'll get us started by cutting to the chase and ask the most obvious question.
Q. If O.J. Simpson did't kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, then who did?
A. Tia Smith.
The most obvious one ... who is Tia Smith?