SoCoOL Visitors Respond To O.J. Simpson


Verhees (verhees@IAEhv.nl.)

I've never believed that O.J. was guilty. I say it's just a media stunt.


William Woodside (zwjw10@access.east-tenn-st.e)
I think that O.J. is the best thing to ever hit a trial so what if he is guilty.


marion (bixbysup)
The death of two people has been overlooked and forgotten by many.


Ted Steier (TrainerTed@msn.com)
Your hopes that he did not commit the murders seems to me to be fruitless. The problem with our justice system is that we allow people who have no knowledge of scientific evidence and questionable ability to understand such evidence to sit in judgement and sort out said evidence. I have yet to speak with anyone with a scientific background who has any doubt that he is guilty. A jury of doctors would have convicted him but his jury aparently couldn't under the overwhelming evidence that he did it. Even educated blacks who I talk with think he did it. I think that it is ironic that the expert DNA attorneys have made a career of getting convicted felons out of prison by showing that DNA didn't match and never brought up any of the ridiculous contamination theories in those cases. In those cases if the DNA didn't match their clients had to be innocent but with OJ the DNA matched but it didn't count. The justice system in our country needs to be dramatically changed!
SoCoOL Bob
How would you change it ? Are you suggesting that ... in a murder case like this one ... the jury should be composed solely of .... of what ... scientists .... people with college degrees .... doctors only ... how will that work for people who don't qualify ... for people who do ... Are you saying that you believed that such behavior as .... not booking blood that was a critical piece of evidence .. not protecting the integrity of that evidence .... driving around with it for four hours ... handing it to someone who didn't know what he did with it .... still gives you BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT .... CONFIDENCE ... that the blood in this case could have been tampered with .... how do you judge the quality of truth that suggests that when they went over the fence ... O.J. Simpson ... was not even a suspect ?

The answers are up to you .... we appreciate them ... either way.

Trainer Ted

The key words that you SHOUTED are BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I don't believe there is enough reasonable doubt to eliminate the mountain of evidence. Yes the police went over the wall and OJ was not a suspect at the time but anyone who thinks they shouldn't have gone over the wall after just coming from a bloody double murder and finding what appeared to be blood on the door of the Bronco and no one answering the bell when someone was supposed to be home must be from some other world. They had every right to suspect that someone else either related to OJ or OJ himself could have been injured and dying inside. If he had been and died from the injurys while the police waited outside everyone would have wanted the hides of the police officers who didn't proceed as the officers did.

Pile up the evidence. The bloody gloves - Mark Furman might be a racist but he's not stupid. He would have looked like a fool planting the glove had Simpson been out of town at the time of the killings. He had no way of knowing when OJ left town so planting the glove makes no sense especially since he also knew that planting evidence in California in a capital offense would have put him in danger of being charged with a capital offense himself. The expensive designer shoes that were OJ's size - again the gloves themselves. If they didn't belong to OJ where were his gloves. If he didn't belong to him he would have been shouting to the rooftops that his were in his dresser drawer or somewhere. The blood in the bronco not just his but also both the murder victims. The knit cap with hairs that matched OJ. It was at the scene and no one even suggests that it was planted. The fact that he changed his story as to what he was doing when the limo driver was trying to get someone to answer the bell.Was he chipping balls in the yard, taking a nap, taking a shower...WHAT? He did all this in the dark? Who was the dark figure who entered the house and turned on the lights. Who was it that had beaten Nicole bloody in the past. True the jury didn't get to hear about how he changed his story about how he cut his finger. The jury didn't get to hear what he reportedly said to Rosy Greer. They didn't get to hear what he had in the bronco - a disguise, a large amount of cash, a passport, the suicide note or whatever you want to call it and on and on. Back to the blood for a moment. You alluded to the contamination or integrity of the blood evidence as some kind of proof. Get real - the identity of soldiers has been determined from DNA that laid in jungles for years. Men are being released from prison because DNA from crimes commited years ago don't match today. I sersiously doubt that the DNA that is proving they were not guilty has been stored in perfect conditions all these years..

Anyone who watched the trial and really considered all the evidence could go on for quite a while with more argument that would seem to prove his guilt but I am quite ready to quit.

As for what I would do with our justice system. I think it may be time for us to have professional juries who are trained to understand evidence for all capital offenses. We have judges who are supposed to be trained to conduct a fair trail but without a jury able to understand all the evidence no one - not OJ - not you or me will get a completely just verdict.

Isn't that what we all want - JUSTICE - not what happened with OJ, so far the Hernandez Brothers, and the cops who beat Rodney King. Those guys got off at first and the government found a way to obtain justice. With OJ the only small amount of justice that can be had will come in the civil courts. You should read the book Double Jeprody by Bob Hill. Mel Ignatow committed a heinous crime and was aquitted - the evidence was quite good that he had committed the crime but the jury found him not quitly - later photographs of his torture of Brenda Schaefer were found in his old home. He's now in prison for perjury. They can't even get OJ for that because he didn't testify.


From: Karen \ Internet: (grover@silcom.com)
Before I spew on, please let me take the time to say that your website is my favorite. I stumbled upon it while making travel arrangements to Santa Rosa and have enjoyed it ever since. It has just the right mix of information and a personality that makes me feel comfortable but keeps me thinking.

RE: OJ

That people find it so necessary to take a stand even though they cannot, know what the whole truth is. That they can pick a single piece of information and because it hits home with their personal life experience, decide that it outweighs all other pieces. I am also shocked at the different standards which exist for the civil suit. It scares me that I could be subject to these other rules of justice.

Karen

From: Robert Kennedy
Subject: OJ COMMENTS
Thank you Karen for your respnse to SoCoOL ... Sonoma County ONLINE ... and the SoCoOL Comments on O.J. Simpson.

What is it that shocks you about the "two standards?"

I naively believed that the rules of the courts, right or wrong, were uniform. Now I find we have this other set of rules. I think of all the effort, time and money spent plodding through evidence and witnesses to come up with verdicts. To think that another set of people can retry the case under a separate set of rules and ignore what was decided by the first group shakes up my understanding. It also seems to me that the civil case rules make a witch hunt easier and are more prejudiced towards people who can afford the time and lawyers. In the case of OJ, if he is found guilty, is a monetary penalty fair ? Why shouldn't he have to serve a prison sentence ? Hey, why not let all plaintiffs have a chance to choose the penalty ? Maybe then only the wealthy will be prosecuted rather than the other way round - the poor who cannot buy their way out with good lawyers.

I guess as bad as I thought the system had become, I now know it is even worse. Two wrongs make things twice as convoluted. The system needs to change. To be simplified so that it can to be trusted to serve justice for all.

From: Robert Kennedy * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
Thanks again for your response ... we appreciate your comments, on both subjects.

I confess my concern becomes the impact of your feelings on YOU .... and the correct course of action that we all need to take when we feel like INJUSTICE abounds. In the success section of SoCoOL ... I make reference to my own belief, developed through experience, that for any individual to reach their maximum potential ... they need to learn how to maintain a positive attitude. While we cannot ignore the potential for injustice in each of us ... we may get farther by making sure that we know how to recognize the positives in every situation .... so we can react correctly. There may be many positives ... even in this situation .... and it is perhaps a good idea to pause just briefly to acknowledge the ones each of us sees ... so we can move forward with hope. Maybe the most important positive in this situation ... is .... that the structure of our justice system is "in our hands" ... and certainly the justice system which we personally live by ... is definitely in our hands. The more each of us grows ... in our own sense of personal justice ... and applies it to our individual lives, the more all of us will grow.

I agree and not to worry...I never give up. Things can always change for the better. The positive side of all of this is the amount of ideas and thoughts that have come out. It is what has made the whole case rather exciting. The sparks of light and insight are flying still.

karen


C.T.Whitley (twhitley@davlin.net)
The harm that it has done to race relations and the worlds image of the United States during and after the trial. What money can buy regardless of your race, creed or color in our Criminal Justice, System. I lived 11 years in the Far East. Maybe we should take a look at our CJS toward improvment, even though it is still the best system in the world today.


Brandi Scott (bscott2@gmu.edu)
My opinion is on the O.J. Simpson trial. I don't think that O.J. was stupid enough to kill Nicole Brown-Simpson himself. He probably knows who did it, but why get his hands dirty when all he has to do is give someone else the money to do it for them.


Kate Anderson (brenta@isomedia.com)
I honestly believe Mr Simpson is innocent. I like every one else in the country, when they heard about the murders, suspected OJ Simpson. In my case, that was very hard for me, because I am from Buffalo, my son was Christened in his Buffalo Bills, #32 sleeper and is called AJ for the same reason OJ goes by OJ. (I am also white, female, and 34)

Now if I thought he was guilty just by the news bulletins, how can four detectives with over a 100 years of experience between them, not suspect him? When they went over that wall, it didn't matter who killed them, because no one could or should have believed that reason. Or the reason they thought someone was hurt inside. That whole explaintion is pitiful. First, what would be the chances of someone left alive at Rockingham after seeing the brutallity of Ron and Nicole's body? They found the bodies shortly after 12:00 am, they wait until 5 or 6 in the morning to see if anyone else was hurt? They had no medical backup and they walked up the driveway together if they honestly thought the murderer was still there, they would have appoarched in a more military style to avoid ambush. Plus, how did they know at Bundy there was only one killer?

I will never believe that they did not ask Sydney or Justin where there father was or his phone number. The man lived 2 miles up the road, if he wasn't a suspect, shouldn't OJ have at least be given the chance to tell his children that there mother was dead.

And even if you believe Mr Simpson did do it, and has told nothing but lies, that makes sense, he does have something to hide, but under no circumstances do I ask the police to lie. They did over and over again, what are they hiding? I would like every person who think OJ is guilty to think about if it was there daughter or son in Ron's and Nicole's places. How many of them would accept the bungling of this investigation? What were they told? I know it would be wrong but if it was my child, I would have ripped the corner's off the stand and performed the horrible autopsies that they performed on my child! Not only were they butchered by the murderer(s), they were so badly butchered in the autopsy there will never be answers that either totally convict or exhorate anyone!

What type parents would constantly, constantly back up the police and DA's after their daughter called 8 times for help, and never got any until she was hurt and later dead. Why weren't those other calls on record? Why didn't any other policeman come forward and say, yes, they went out to the Simpsons on such and such a date? OJ was a good friend to the LAPD, why hasn't anyone come forward to say he told OJ that Nicole was calling the station and telling the cops that OJ was beating her, but every time they showed, she wouldn't talk or their were no signs of her being beaten? Knowing how much OJ loves his reputation, don't you think he would have confronted her? If all the police calls were true and they weren't recorded, it could only be for 3 reasons, he was OJ Simpson and she was a nobody, or white woman married to a black. Was there physical contact by both of them? Like, Nicole, if we take OJ downtown for hitting you, we have to take you too because you hit him. Or was alochol the major factor in these altercations? I don't know, but Nicole did say, "He's OJ Simpson and I think you know his record" well aparently they didn't.

I am not say Mr Simpson was always an angel but neither was she. Her sister Denise, I think said the most important thing about domestic abuse. She kept saying her sister was not abused, then as she studied the subject she "knows" the "truth" now. When I heard her say she didn't know what domestic violence was, after she TOOK PICTURES of her sister, and never saw domestic abuse at home, I had to laugh, was this woman dumb? But she kept saying she didn't know what is was, and I followed all her speeches and I now believe she didn't know. But I also believe that OJ and Nicole didn't know either. If this was the way they handled all their problems, these incidents really would be no big deal to them.

I have learned one thing from Denise and it has changed by life forever and probably my son's. If I teach his to fight with hands if he physically struck, who do I tell that he never, never, under any circumstances is to play with someone's heart, soul, emotions because that hurts more than any physical punch can.

I do think Faye Resnick is involved. A person who has had problems with drugs, especially an expensive one, is not going to have a "best friend" who is straight and will not partcipate in her world. What did Nicole have that Faye needed? Then when Nicole decided that enough is enough and put her rehab, do you think Faye was happy or grateful? I have never, ever heard her thank her best friend for turning her in to get help and get off drugs, have you?

Also, why is Marcus Allen lying saying he was out of the country, when the a witness testifed he told OJ that Marcus left an hour ago?

As for the media, they made one huge, huge mistake. The legal eagles, experts, media have seen so much of crime, they know defendents and victims come from all walks of life. Many never even considered OJ's skin color as the defendent, but all their comments have come out so anti-black. They talk about the jury and not looking at the evidence, why should they have when they knew the police were lying? How long does it take for anyone to know that? Every detective, pundit or media expert said they have never seen so much evidence against a person, SHOULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN A HINT, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE?

How did the "leak" on the socks get out? That scene was so bloody, how could only two people's blood be on them? If OJ dropped that glove on his estate, first he walks away from committing a brutal crime, but panics when he is on his own estate and hits the wall three times? Kate told OJ he heard something back there, by that time OJ would have known he was missing the gloves and go back to see if he dropped them there. He would have known what and where to look and if the police asked him why is blood or other evidence of his being back there, he could have just said, "Kato heard a noise, he was scared, I checked it out".

I also believe, after watching OJ in court for all those months, and listening to those 911 calls, that man never shuts up and always has been very loud, how did he kill in silence? If Ron was a surprise to him, how could he have killed them both in silence? He would have had to go into the house to see if his kids saw or heard anything because there is no way he could have concealed his identy, or leave the door to the condo open, knowing his children were upstairs. He never tried to hide her body, he left her under the light where she could have have be seen by someone passing by. Also, she was dressed to go out that night, thats why she wore the dress she did, or thats what OJ thought, why would he go over there, knowing a baby sitter was there or going to be there shortly. As per her sister, all the candles, the bath the music were her sister's trademarks when she was expecting a romantic evening, OJ would have known, well if a baby sitter is on the way, someone else is and again her body would have found so much sooner.

I will always blame Mr. Shapiro for the legacy of the trial, I still can't believe what he said about Mr. Cochran and the holocaust. "When I think of the holocaust, I cry. When I hear things that Furhman says, it makes him sick". Should he have cried when he heard those Furhman's voice on those tapes, shouldn't he have cried when Christopher Darden, stood up in court and said he was not going to be in the courtroom if Furhman was called to the stand? To realize in front of the whole world that a black man in the US still feels he has to leave the room because he knew how much this man hated him and his people? I cried so hard over this. Even if Mr. Shapiro couldn't cry for Mr Darden as a Jew, what about crying for him as a man, as an American, as another human being?

I am very frighted that not only has this trial divided the country on racial issues, but have we divided God's heaven? I mean to treat the holocaust more as memorial to only Jews, we are paving the way for another attempted genoicide and that Jews everywhere feel there is only racism if it involves Jews or that it takes six million for it to be wrong is chilling, and I do believe that there is not one of those six million men, women or children, get any sense of revenge or relieve when they look down from heaven and see any form of racism. I don't think any person, of any race, color or creed who has entered God's Kingdom before their time. strictly because of their race, color or creed, finds any justification in watching others suffer their same fate. I don't believe as those six million men, women or children, as they entered heaven's gate, the Afro-Americans were shouting, "THERE HOW DO YOU LIKE, HOW DO LIKE BEING TAKEN FROM YOUR HOMELAND AND FORCED INTO SLAVERY, HOW DO LIKE GETTING THROWN IN TO OVEN, THEY TARRED, FEATHERED, AND BURNED US! AT LEAST MOST OF YOU WENT TO YOUR HELL ON EARTH BY TRAIN, WE HAD TO ROW OURSELVES OVER!!!!

My heart does go out the the Goldmans, but my heart aches for the Simpsons and the Browns. Because one day, Sydney Simpson is going to ask, "I am white and black, who do I love, who do hate, did my daddy go free because he is black or was he put in jail because he his black and my mother was white?

I'd love to see Marica and Chris hear that question and I would love to hear those four police dectives and Gil Garcetti and Willie Williams answer that question. I just hope she does go to either the Browns or the Simpsons and does not follow Cheynne Brando example and take her own life because she has no where to turn or what to believe in. I wonder how Geraldo would act at her funeral?

Thank you

Kate Anderson

OH OH .... Looks like SoCoOL's Version of

CROSSFIRE ....

It will have to printed as from an ANONYMOUS EMAILER ... a far healthier way, certainly of communicating, than UNIBOMBING, for example. I suspect we would prefer that one were able to step up to the plate and say what one has to say ... all the while "identifying" oneself ... but I can certainly respect that perhaps one might be better able to express oneself if one chose to remain "anonymous." So Kate .... hear it is .... I'm not sure "anonymous" buys my notion of praising "even your enemies," recognize their good points "blah," "blah," etc. Here goes .... (Oh .. by the way .... if I'm going to respond I'll have to respond in italics .... can't send EMail to anonymous.

Dear Kate Anderson,

I'm sorry that you are so deluded. Please seek professional help. Having just served jury duty in a state that no longer accepts exemptions for doctors, lawyers, priests, and the like, I can tell you with some certainty that the trial process will be much more fair in the future. It is ridiculous to assume that a jury consists of one's peers when it is limited to those people who can (a) serve the extensive amount of time necessary often for horrifying crimes (b) be sequestered for this amount of time (c) not lose their jobs, if they have them, over this extended period of time away from work. Now that all are required to serve, we should see some astute reasoning, rather than reliance on stupid rhymes ("if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit")

To this point there seems to be some question about the method of selecting juries. This jury apparently didn't match the "jury of ones peers" concept .... this will not happen in the future because we're going to pick our juries different. I am very curious about this state and the significance of this exemption. Reminds me ... I've got this letter among my pile of papers requesting I fill out a form for jury duty .... I think it's due soon. Can't say as I would recommend myself for jury duty, but I guess we'll see ??? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to comment on the you're deluded part. That's our boy ANONYMOUS ... Rule #1 ... Begin in a Friendly Way

The fact that those gloves were his size and did go onto his hands said that they could have been his. Not had to be, but could have been. Anyone who owns leather gloves knows that if they get wet--with water, sweat, whatever-- unless they are stretched as they dry, they will shrink somewhat.

I think that's a reasonably good point .... and a good approach to the FACTS about the glove. It seems wise to me to begin with the notion .... or the question .... so far ... could those have been OJ's gloves? Would everyone on the jury be willing to explore the notion .... as best they can ... with the evidence they've been given be willing to examine the question. Is it still possible those are O.J.'s gloves ???

Just one last comment, for I know that there is no convincing anyone who thinks the way you do.

You could be right?

If OJ is truly innocent, why is he not looking for the actual killer? Why is he simply going from golf course to golf course? Why is he being shunned by all of his former neighbors, and many former close friends? Why does he have nightmares that he did murder her? And lastly, why did he so miserably, miserably fail a lie detector test administered by his own attorneys???

Have "we" established this statement as fact/facts ?

On a scale where -6 denotes that the person being testing is being deceptive, OJ scored -20. That is not nervousness, that is lying. Overt, measurable lying.

No lawyer wants a person like this on their jury.

From Kate Anderson:

Hello, my name is Kate Anderson and submitted comments about OJ's innocence and I have no idea who any of you are. Why I am deluded? I really don't understand what you mean.

Is it me that you feel that you will never change my mind? I do have a more questions. Doesn't seem odd that Kato Kalin was never asked to demonstrate or never volunteered to demonstrate what he now says "it could have been OJ hitting the wall?"

I am very intrigued by AC picking up the jewlery and where OJ went of the fence and lost his keys. He knew Kato was home, why didn't he enter through the tennis court and even if he hit something, no one will hear it? Who ever did these crimes made sure he was heard. Also Kato was a very good friend to Nicole and he didn't really know OJ that well so there was no way OJ could have counted or depended on Kato as an alibi. And what about OJ not going back to look for that glove, again, he knew Kato heard him?

From my understanding of the evidence the glove was the only thing that was "unusual". If he hit that wall that hard, there would have to something or some mark on the wall itself?

About the luggage carried by Robert K., wouldn't they have checked it for traces of blood? I mean isn't blood very hard to get rid of? But that is another stupid theory of the desperate DA's. Why if OJ killed Ron and Nicole would he even bring back the blood evidence as in bloody clothing when he sucessfuly "smuggled" to Chicago and put all his "tools" in the same place?

Also, if those were OJ's glove and if they were even tight on him wouldn't his hands sweat and therefore leave "DNA" on the lining of the glove?

I hope someone answers.

Kate Anderson


There's More
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?
The SoCoOL Interview

Do You Have A Response?


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