SoCoOL Visitors Respond To O.J. Simpson
OJ Visitors Respond To OJ 4 Ever

I could NEVER do that with these gloves on?

Submitted by mildred Umbarger (
I believe the jury made the correct decision based on the evidence presented. I could deduct many examples of reasonable doubt. The prosecution was not very sharp. It seemed they were poorly prepared, always on the defensive. That is not proactive. This was the News media event of the year, not the trial of the year!
SoCoOL Bob
To CNBC this is the News Media Event of the Millenium.

submitted by (John Peel)
Why do you have to be rude when you disagree with someone's opinion? Kate Anderson doesn't deserve the malicious vitriol you threw her way. The points she made were very thougthful. Ones deserving at least a little credit. I happen to agree with her and I will do my best to hold back the strong feelings I have against you for your unforgivable behavior. The prosecution and Judge Ito did a miserable job. They are the ones deserving of the attacks. Not a Kate Anderson who expresses her opinions in a civilized manner.

-JOHN PEEL and a fan of Alan Dershowitz and F. Lee Bailey

submitted by JOHN PEEL (
I made a boo-boo and gave my criticisms to the author of this page rather than to the cowardly anonymous. I want to say that Kate Anderson, if you're out there, send me your snail mail address as I don't have e-mail capabilities at the moment although my wife does. You may send me e-mail at which is my wife's account. I would like to talk in depth with you of a like mind in the OJ case. It gets lonely out here in the minority opinion.

Best to AJ -John Peel (will give my address where it is not posted all over the web.)


submitted by Tony (

I just have one question: How come some folks accept the messenge and the messenger when it comes to Farrakahn but not when it comes to Mark Furhman's testimoney in the OJ Simpson trial?? How can anyone possibly justify this hypocracy ?????????

submitted by renzo (
The OJ case is just a fine example of "Money doesn't talk, it swears"

submitted by Kate Anderson (
I want to thank all those who mentioned by name, and very happy that you too have considered these points as well. The Bronco Chase is not a sign of guilt. That's the whole problem with many people in this case ...

"Why did he run if he wasn't guilty".

Nancy Grace, a white prosecutor from Georgia, summed up the whole race and running question, and she doesn't even know it.

On one occasion she was on Rivera Live and she said, "If the police are chasing me, I pull over!"

Well Nancy Grace. Nor am I afraid to be pulled over. As a matter fact, most white people are not only afraid of being pulled, we almost always know why were are. We usually know what we have done and hope we can start crying (women) just as the policeman comes to the window and do our best to convince the cop that we are sorry and will never do again. Well America has seen why black people are afraid to be pulled over. We have seen why Latinos are afraid of being pulled over. Look how the "legal" experts defended the cops when they beat up the "illegal aliens" a few months ago. Everyone called the criminals, hey people, we are Americans, our country is based on the exact same freedom those "aliens" have been beaten for and condemned. When did it become a crime to want to be free? Is that such a horrible crime? Have we lost what America is really about? That Bronco chase was a man running scared, period! If he did these crimes, IMO, he would have killed himself, what did he have to live for. Remember, the headlines were full of the "evidence" against him. Remember, bloody ski mask, bloody clothes in the washer, the bloody military jacket found in Chicago. If he knew that, and that was the truth and everday there was another "truth" connecting him to the crime, what would he have to live for? He lost everything and knew he was caught...but if he checked out, we could all speculate now until doomsday, but we never would have known the truth, dead man don't talk!

If all that stuff was written about you before you were even arrested and every friend you thought you had, now refuses to acknowledge you, I'd be pretty depressed my self. And this consciouness of guilt, what is that? When criminals commit a crime and they evade capture or try to, what, do the police or shrinks make them fill out a survery, AND THE SURVEY SHOWS WHEN YOU DO THIS, YOU ARE A) GUILTY OR B) SCARED BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING FALSELY ACCUSED? Do criminals of different races behave differently when they are trying to run away? Or do they behave differently when they deal with the police. Plus, who fills out these surveys? I assume most shrinks who are seeing a suspected murderer, have never killed anyone themselves. So how do they know the signs of guilt? Isn't that like going to a Roman Catholic priest and talking to me about the sexual problems you are having and how its affecting your marriage". How would he know if isn't supposed to have had sex or been married?

As for the evidence in this case, again you can't take a survey of what evidence you thought the jurors should have considered. They have been unfairly critized because of so-called "non-delibrating on the evidence." Well, how do you deliberate the evidence when you know at least 2 of the lead detectives have lied, and the others can't seem to remember if they knew about other abuse or even where the man lived?. My three main questions of people who still insist that the verdict was wrong is:

If it was your daughter, how long would it be before you figured out that her name, Nicole Simpson, became Nicole Brown Simpson or Nicole Brown after she was dead?

Would you want those jurors to convict you son with the EXACT SAME testimony, evidence and everything else?

Third, as a country, don't we deserve to at least trust the men and the women that we pay, that we elect, that we need to protect us? How will ever get our streets back? If we don't work together, we will never get them back, how can we, if the citzens don't trust the cops and the cops don't trust the people they are suppose to be protecting?


submitted by (
I can't believe I'm wasting my time here (should just turn the tv off, but:)

Grodin is an egotistical ass. Why not shut up and really interview your guest instead of talk, talk, talk about yourself. Sickening to say the least. Tonite a quality guest, but half the show is goddin blabbing about himself. Ego maniac and CNBC puts up with it. Well there's no accounting for taste or ratings I guess. No more CNBC for me. If I want to vomit, I'll use the finger in the throat instead of watching this self serving ass.

ok? so much for the friendly email...

submitted by Lawrence Marvin (
Get that jerk off the air!

submitted by lsmith (coco1981)
I with all me heart think that, O J Simpson did not kill Nicole or Ron. The police in California have such a track record that if one were to come to me and say "WE HAVE A NEW BABY" I would not believe them. They do have habits of planting crap. I think it is ashame that Ron's father is in need of money such that he would use his son's name to get it. I would not trust him as far as I can throw him!! I think they all should have been polygraphed, if you ask me, from Gill on down to ?

I am a white women, live in a ALL white town, and still believe O.J. Simpson is INNOCENT!!!! I watched this case from day one, and I don't know what everyone else watched, perhaps the Enquirer, or something. It was NOT the O.J. Simpson case !!! Two people are dead and L.A. could not look beyond their wallets.

submitted by Richard Armstrong (
O.J. recently went to church, where he was "loudly applauded." He says he went there so he could "go to heaven." O.J. Simpson will forevermore be remembered as the murderer who got away with it, and therefore, will never find his place in heaven. Nothing can change that.

Judge Not ???

submitted by M. J. Evans (WPGATE::SMTP%"")
What a bunch of baloney you spout out. My "higher power" tells me that you have formed an obvious opinion. That's ok but it's not mine you haven't changed a thing in my mind. ". . . Deliver us from all evil . . . ."

Disclaimer: These comments are my personal opinion, not those of my employer.

Good For You !!!

submitted by anonymous (anonymous)
I just know that Kate can't possibly be serious. Look at the evidence, people. It is overwhelming. There was no *reasonable* doubt.

submitted by Anthony (
1. The legal decision and how it is being dishonored. Among the worst culprits are: Rivera, Grodin, Bugliosi,Allred,Toensing,Di Genova,Ferris-Piro and more. The lessons from the legals are the worst example of educating the public---it is OK to violate a man's rights because "WE" think he is guilty, even though the law says he is not.

2. Using the media to promote unethical conduct. The DA's ofice--leaking selected and untrue information before and during trial. Their conduct IN the trial---the bag and shovel caper, the dramatic Friday afternoon 'discoveries' orchestrated for max impact. The shielding and coddling of a known wild hair like Fuhrman. The burial of Dr. Golden.... All in the name of "Seeking the Truth" Give me a break---these people are hypocrites at least and probably liars or worse. I haven't got to the cops yet----

3. Public opinion based on faulty headlines and sound bites endangers the very parchment of our Constitution. I watched much of the trial and would cringe when the evening headlines distorted, overlooked or misrepresented the truth as seen that day. No wonder people who work everyday and get their news in chunks believe he is guilty---the media said so.

4. His actual guilt or innocence? Who knows? That's not the issue any more--it's what we as a society want to do to prevent the erosion of our basic rights.

Ooo, gee. I hate to take sides. Are we collectively, in quantity, concerned like we were, about the way we determine the rights of others? What if he did it?

submitted by Anthony (
Kate, your logic and reasoning is right on. Note that most of those whould disagree cannot contain their hostility and rudeness when trying to discuss the issue. This case is a landmark battle of rights and the good guys won over deception and fraud. Whether OJ actually did these crimes is still uncertain, but the law that binds us must be respected and honored not cast aside like the LAPD and LADA tried.

Best, Anthony

submitted by John Peel (
How can this case not be about race when the defendant is a black man married to a white woman, and there is a racist cop who detests mixed race couples?

And why is no one upset with the prosecutors who blew this case bigtime? Would those who are so sure the man is guilty be yelling so loud if OJ was convicted in the same amount of time it took the jury to deliver a NOT GUILTY verdict? I think not.

And does anyone remember that there was the blood type of a fourth person's blood on the Bronco console that was unrecognizable? And the blond male hair on the cap that was not a short, coarse dog hair as some tried to say. The main thing to remember is that no one was a witness to the murders but the killer or killers and none of us were there, so don't be so sure you have the answers out there. It's still all theory!

John E. Peel

Also submitted by John Peel (

I want to congratulate Kate Anderson on her thoughtful commentary, and I agree with her. I hope she can email me and share some thoughts on this horrible case. The answer lies with two of the policeman as much as with Faye Resnick, in my judgement, and I'm tired of the rude boors who cannot discuss such controversial issues without ad hominem attacks. (nasty remarks on a personal level.) That's it! the man is innocent!!!!

submitted by B. Dolan (
A person who is capable of violence toward his or her spouse, is very capable of killing. If I had been on the jury, I would have been compelled to find him guilty of both murders.

Forgetting the emotion of having to choose either yes or no, the evidence against OJ is overwhelming. Throw out all the so called contaminated blood, and you still have a tremendous amount of evidence. His blood was at the crime scene - and it was not contaminated nor showed any trace of ETA. His only explanation was that it was planted. This was never proven and there was no evidence that it was - not one shred of evidence. Also, the fiber from his Bronco was found at the scene. Pictures reveal also that he owned the same type of shoe that was worn by the killer. If this all doesn't add up to overwhelming evidence, than nothing does and our justice system is broken.

The man is guilty - just look at the evidence!

submitted by Rich Famiglietti (
I never believed for one instant that O.J. did the crime. There were too many holes in the prosecution's case. I recall the coroner saying that the knife wounds on Ron Goodman could have come from 2 weapons.
Why didn't the DA respond to that?
What about the socks in O.J.'s room that wern't on video when they filmed the room but suddenly appeared?
What about the fact that if O.J. did do it and supposedly hopped his own fence to drop the glove why wasn't there any blood anywhere on the fence?
Also if he did do it why wasn't he injured and what did he do with the blood (gallons?) that would have soaked him from head to toe if he cut Nicole's jugler vein?
I believe it would have taken at least two people to pull this off. There was a similar case here in San Diego about a month before the O.J. crime. Still there was no apparent attempt to try to connect the two events. I believe O.J. is innocent and wish the rest of the people would let that man live his life in peace and let him earn his paycheck which he hasn't been able to do since his release.


submitted by Jean Masters (
I've said time and time again. People should think for themselves, instead of putting stock in what the news media reports.

I am a white,elderly, female. I watched the trial in it's entirety. The problem with people is, they wanted to say OJ was guilty, yet they didn't watch the trial. I DID!

If anyone was blind enough to believe that Van Atter, Mark Furhman weren't lying, then they don't live in the real world.

Does OJ impress you to be stupid enough to clean up all his bloody clothes from the crime scene, then go home, and throw the bloody glove in his back yard. Get real. Who's that stupid? The entire trial was an insult to any intelligent person. At least, one who can evaluate the evidence for themselves.

The blood vile. Blood ran down the sides. I've had blood lab training. No professional would ever pour blood from a vile. Someone DiD. Oj, Nichole's, and Goldmans. Didn't anyone see the blood viles desplayed on TV. What about the 1.5 mils, of blood missing. Was anyone naive enough to believe the male nurse who drew OJ's blood, on the video, in the court room, explain that he all of a sudden remembered that he didn't draw as much blood as he originally stated.

Does the American Public live in such a protected cacoon, that they actulay think that Mark Furman didn't plant the golve? Furhman is an admitted liar. Do you think he was telling the truth about not planting the glove. He did. OJ sure didn't take it home with him.

Faye Resnick. I am so sick of the media embracing this disgusting, drug filled liar, I could scream. She definately owed a drug bill. She was so addicted she became paranoid, in her own words written in her book. She was broke. What was the reason for her paranoia before she admitted herself. Of course, she didn't tell you that in her book. She would rather have convinced you that she was frightened of OJ. But if you read her book carefully, you can read why she was frightened.

Furthermore,. if OJ came directly home from the muders and tossed the bloody glove in the walkway, behind Kato's room, then tell me, Why did the blood trail go from the Bronco , into the house? Denise, would like for us to believe that OJ said, ' he would kill Nichole if he caught her with another man. Well why didn't her kill her 2 years before the muders, when he caught her , in a comprimised position, knees on the floor, doing an unspeakable act.

OH, Yes, We the people are suppose to believe that OJ lost control 2 years latter, Is this the DAAAAAAA story of the year.

I read, that one writer believes that, any intelligent, educated person, who watched the trial, couldn't believe Simpson innocent. Well let me tell you fellow. I am an experienced, educated, and intelligent person. and I can't believe that the American public believes anything else. Forget the DNA. Of course that was OJ blood. But who put it there.? Van Atter. Who put the blood on the sock. The sock certainly wasn't on someones foot when the blood was planted. Unless they had a tissue thin leg. Remember, the blood was on both sides.

Like it or not. Faye Resnick caused Nicole's and Goldman's muder. Sorry folks. Come down and spend some time in the real world. Get your heads out of the news media spin, think for yourselves. and give OJ a break. Many, owe him an apology. He is an innocent man. Now there trying to take his kids. But then of course, the kids are their only link, now that Nichole is gone, to the OJ Goodie Train.

submitted by J. Anderson (
OJ is as guilty as sin. Anyone that thinks otherwise must be on crack or a supporter of Minister? Faracon and Jesse Jackson and or Bill Clinton. Haraldo Rivera is a whore, but OJ, You are guilty.

Is it really legal to carry on as Grodin does on his show? How can this be right? Even more surprising is the fact that the network REPLAYS the epi- sodes with all the obvious inaccuracies and untruths, not only once, but over and over again. When Grodin has been corrected (very rarely), his apology is barely detectable, and the programs with the mistatements of facts contin- ue to be aired repeatedly.

Not only that, there is a hatred, a maliciousness in his attitude which may be picked up by uninformed viewers (possibly potential jurors), but I guess that that is what he wants.

I can't see how this can be right before God or man, particularly during any ongoing litigation. This type of programming makes the British system of no trial press seem worth looking into, although I would never want our country give up free press. More RESPONSIBLE, less BIASED press would be nice, though.

submitted by Amy Cook (
"You probably thought there was nothing more to say about the O.J. Simpson case. You thought wrong."--The Boston Globe

The Run of His Life -- The People v. O.J. Simpson by Jeffrey Toobin

WHO did Nicole Brown Simpson call 5 days before being murdered?
WHAT was Simpsons score on the lie detector test?
WHEN was the "suicide note" written?
WHY was the defense delighted when Marcia Clark took the case?
HOW did OJ know the night before the verdict came in that he was going to be acquitted?

Check in daily to the Random House Web site for a shocking revelation from the pages of Toobin's new book. Be the Judge and Jury in the "Retrial" discussion forum.

The Run of His Life ... The People v. O.J. Simpson

Send EMail To O.J. Himself ... Let Me Know If You Get Through

SoCoOL Visitors Respond To O.J. Simpson ... Page One
SoCoOL Visitors Respond To O.J. Simpson ... Page Two
Original Comments On O.J. Simpson
O.J. Simpson Re-Visited... A Line Drawn In The Sand
Christopher Darden
Who The Hell Is Charles Grodin?
OJ Visitors Respond To OJ 4 Ever
The SoCoOL Interview

Do You Have A Response?
Join the "SoCoOL" Network ... Now We Are A Herd

O.J. SimpsonSoCoOL Amazon.ComSoCoOL

Opportunity To Make A Contribution To SoCooLTV

© Copyright 1995 - 2009 SoCô¿ôL ... Online, ® All Bytes Preserved.
Robert Kennedy Productions
SoCô¿ôL Services