ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags murder cases , O.J. Simpson

Reply
Old 29th October 2017, 11:53 AM   #121
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,078
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Tony Ortega takes Dear to task in this article.

Ortega summarizes his case at the beginning of his article:
Quote:
As I said in my original story, there are some interesting points made in Dearís book, and he tells it in a way that makes it sound compelling. But the holes in his theory are more numerous than the holes in the two victims.

ó Dear almost completely avoids any discussion of the actual blood evidence at the scene, the single most important piece of evidence to consider. And his ideas for how OJ Simpsonís blood ended up at the scene are beyond preposterous.

ó Dearís timeline for that night is a complete farce. In 12 minutes, he has Jason committing the murders, calling his father, and then OJ coming down and observing the scene and returning home.

ó Dear discounts evidence of OJís violent history, while overplaying and misdiagnosing Jasonís own mental health history, according to an expert we consulted.

ó Ron Shipp, O.J.ís friend and a former cop, told me that Dear had misrepresented what he said after being interviewed in ways that favored Dearís theory.

ó And despite the tenuous nature of his theories, Dear put Jason under years of unwanted surveillance that smacks more of Dearís attempt at fame than any rational search for the truth.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 01:42 PM   #122
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Just wanted to address this real quick.

1.) People at LAX would not have known to examine his hands.
2.) Simpson would not have been trying to draw attention to the cut.
3.) It doesn't matter that no one at LAX noticed the cut on his hand. We know that Simpson got the cut on his hand before he went to the airport because he said so in his testimony to the police.
Wrong on all three counts.

One, several of the witnesses said they looked at his hands. He signed autographs for some of them. One of them specified that he looked specifically at OJ's fingers because he was looking to see if OJ was wearing a championship ring.

Two, the witnesses were asked if OJ appeared to be trying to hide his hands, and all of them said no, he was not. They were also asked if they noticed anything odd in OJ's demeanor, and all of them said he looked relaxed, happy, and friendly.

Three, OJ did *not* say he suffered the half-inch cut before he left LA. He said no such thing in his police interview. He said he suffered a small cut at his house before he left, and that he did not even notice he had cut himself until he saw a drop of blood on his kitchen counter. He said that he thought he might have reopened and enlarged that tiny cut when he smashed the glass in his Chicago hotel room.

It was established at the trial that after OJ smashed the glass in his hotel room, he went to the front desk to get a bandaid, and that the Chicago police found blood on broken glass and on a sheet/towel in his room. By the way, he also wore the bandaid on the flight back to LA, and people noticed the bandaid.

Here's a 23-minute documentary on the half-inch cut by Brian Heiss, one of the leading scholars on the OJ Simpson case:

https://vimeo.com/230375961
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 29th October 2017 at 01:54 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 06:00 PM   #123
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,562
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
How about you explain how you would cut yourself with your own knife while stabbing two people, and while wearing gloves (gloves that fit you so tightly that you had to pull and tug them very hard to put them on)? After all, that was the prosecution's theory. How would that work? (While you're at it, how about explaining why there was no cut on the alleged left murder glove at the location corresponding to the cut on OJ's left middle finger?)

Well.....

The perfectly feasible explanation for this is that one of the two people he attacked* pulled off Simpson's left glove in the early stages of the attack. And after his left glove had been pulled off, Simpson then managed to cut the finger on his left hand (now gloveless) with his own knife (which he was holding in his still-gloved right hand) in the midst of stabbing the victim.

Incidentally, the glove was subsequently discovered by police on the edge of the undergrowth at the side of the boundary fence of Nicole's front garden area. This also lends weight to the idea that Simpson, having had his glove pulled off, could not easily see where it had come to rest: it was a dark brown glove that had fallen onto brown soil, and there were very low light levels. So it's also feasible that Simpson reasoned it was more important for him to get away from the crime scene as soon as possible than it was for him to spend time looking for the missing glove. Or, indeed, it's also feasible that his heightened levels of excitement, fear and guilt meant that he simply forgot that his glove had been pulled off his hand, and only realised it once he got to his car or even got back to his own residence (where he dumped the other, right-hand glove in a place that he probably hoped would never be discovered....).


* Probably Goldman, judging by the place the glove was found, and on the basis that Goldman would have been a much closer physical match to Simson than Nicole, and on the basis that DNA from Nicole and Goldman was found on that glove (and other evidence suggests that Nicole was attacked and killed first, and then Goldman turned up and was killed second).
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 06:04 PM   #124
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,562
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Wrong on all three counts.

One, several of the witnesses said they looked at his hands. He signed autographs for some of them. One of them specified that he looked specifically at OJ's fingers because he was looking to see if OJ was wearing a championship ring.

Two, the witnesses were asked if OJ appeared to be trying to hide his hands, and all of them said no, he was not. They were also asked if they noticed anything odd in OJ's demeanor, and all of them said he looked relaxed, happy, and friendly.

The cut on Simpson's finger was on the palmar side the finger. All Simpson would have to do would be to hold his left hand palm side downwards or inwards, and the cut would have been essentially hidden from view. I suggest it would have been very easy for Simpson to have hidden the cut in that way from autograph seekers etc (and he'd have actually signed with his right hand, of course). Simpson had the whole limo journey to staunch the bleeding and get his demeanour together - he'd have known it was a virtual certainty that he'd be recognised and approached at the airport, so he'd have wanted to prepare for that scenario in advance.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 04:34 PM   #125
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
The cut on Simpson's finger was on the palmar side the finger. All Simpson would have to do would be to hold his left hand palm side downwards or inwards, and the cut would have been essentially hidden from view. I suggest it would have been very easy for Simpson to have hidden the cut in that way from autograph seekers etc (and he'd have actually signed with his right hand, of course). Simpson had the whole limo journey to staunch the bleeding and get his demeanour together - he'd have known it was a virtual certainty that he'd be recognised and approached at the airport, so he'd have wanted to prepare for that scenario in advance.
The cut was next to his knuckle on top of his left middle finger. Look at the LAPD photo of it. It would have been obvious to anyone who looked at his left hand. Some of the witnesses looked at his hands when he was not signing autographs. One of them zeroed in on his fingers because he was looking to see if OJ was wearing a championship ring.

You need to come to grips with a few facts:

* The blood trail from the Bronco was very sparse, suggesting a small cut.

* The blood trail from the Bronco totally contradicted the prosecution's claim about OJ's movements and supported OJ's story.

* Not a speck of blood was found along the route that the prosecution claimed OJ took after he exited the Bronco.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 05:26 PM   #126
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well.....

The perfectly feasible explanation for this is that one of the two people he attacked* pulled off Simpson's left glove in the early stages of the attack. And after his left glove had been pulled off, Simpson then managed to cut the finger on his left hand (now gloveless) with his own knife (which he was holding in his still-gloved right hand) in the midst of stabbing the victim.
"Perfectly feasible"?! Not at all. It is hard to know where to begin, because you're ignoring so much evidence and making so many unlikely assumptions. Dr. Henry Johnson, M.D., has shown that most of the wounds were done by a left-handed person, but OJ was right-handed. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that most of the wounds were done by a lefty--just look at their location and angle in the autopsy report. Anyway. . . .

The prosecution said the attack took no more than 60 seconds and that OJ somehow caught Goldman by surprise. So it is a bit hard to imagine how someone stabbed by surprise and knocked backward, as the prosecution claimed, could have managed to pull off a glove while doing all the other things the prosecution said he did, in less than 60 seconds.

Just try pulling off someone's glove when the glove fit is so skin tight that you have to yank and jerk it just to put it on. And, pray tell, while Goldman was trying to pull off a glove, in less than 60 seconds, when did he have time to swing wildly and, according to the prosecution, miss his attacker(s) with every punch and instead hit the nearby tree or fence, not to mention kick at his attacker(s) (one of his shoes had a defensive stab mark), and also wrestle with his attacker so that his shoes dug out considerable dirt from the ground in a small space?

Quote:
Incidentally, the glove was subsequently discovered by police on the edge of the undergrowth at the side of the boundary fence of Nicole's front garden area. This also lends weight to the idea that Simpson, having had his glove pulled off, could not easily see where it had come to rest: it was a dark brown glove that had fallen onto brown soil, and there were very low light levels.
Once again you're ignoring all kinds of evidence and simply parroting the prosecution's far-fetched scenario. You can't rationally explain how a surprised and stabbed Goldman could have pulled off a glove and do everything else he did in less than 60 seconds. By the way, Goldman could not have been surprised because Nicole would have had to come out and let him in the middle gate since the buzz lock release did not work, and he had lipstick on his cheek--so they were together when the attack began, a fact confirmed by the blood spatter, as Drs. Lee and Baden explained.

Next, you need to address the fact that Fuhrman lied about when he had Rokar take the photo of him pointing at the Bundy glove; the fact that Furhman originally referred to seeing two gloves at Bundy; the fact that Rokar took the pointing-at-glove photo before Fuhrman was even officially at Rockingham; the fact that the next door maid heard unfamiliar men's voices on OJ's lawn two to three hours before Fuhrman, Vannatter, and Lange said they arrived at Rockingham; the fact that the blood on the Rockingham glove would have been bone dry by the time Fuhrman saw it if he had indeed "found" it at around 6:15; the fact that the glove had a hair from the under belly of Nicole's dog, clearly suggesting that the glove was at Bundy after the murders and then transported to OJ's house; the fact that a highly placed LAPD source told best-selling true-crime author Stephen Singular that Fuhrman moved the glove from Bundy in a blue LAPD evidence bag and planted it at Rockingham, and that the source told Singular about this before anyone knew that a blue LAPD evidence bag would show up in one of the photos of the Rockingham glove.

Quote:
So it's also feasible that Simpson reasoned it was more important for him to get away from the crime scene as soon as possible than it was for him to spend time looking for the missing glove. Or, indeed, it's also feasible that his heightened levels of excitement, fear and guilt meant that he simply forgot that his glove had been pulled off his hand, and only realised it once he got to his car or even got back to his own residence (where he dumped the other, right-hand glove in a place that he probably hoped would never be discovered....).
Oh, my! OJ didn't think the police would find a bloody glove behind his house! This is the kind of nonsense that one must embrace to accept the prosecution's theory. Why in the world would he have climbed over the fence in the first place when he could have much more easily and quickly used the alternate rear entrance that he and his guests all used on occasion for convenience? Why was there no debris--not one speck--on that glove? If it dropped to the ground among a bunch of leaves and dirt, some debris would have naturally gotten on the top of the glove and clung to the blood.

I'll tell you what: You video tape an experiment where you put a similar amount of blood on a glove and leave it out in similar weather for seven hours, and you'll see that every single time the blood will be bone dry. This has been confirmed in numerous experiments. Dr. Lee noted that the prosecution's tale violates scientific fact on this issue.

Quote:
* Probably Goldman, judging by the place the glove was found, and on the basis that Goldman would have been a much closer physical match to Simson than Nicole, and on the basis that DNA from Nicole and Goldman was found on that glove (and other evidence suggests that Nicole was attacked and killed first, and then Goldman turned up and was killed second).
The Caucasian hair in the glove was not consistent with Goldman's hair. The defense asked that the hair be compared with Fuhrman's hair, but the prosecution objected and Fuhrman was not required to provide a hair sample.

No evidence suggests that Nicole was attacked first. Rather, the evidence indicates that they were attacked at the same time by at least two assailants, one of whom was left handed.

Nicole would have had to come outside to let Goldman in through the middle gate because the buzzer lock release was not working. This was thoroughly established at the trial. Plus, Goldman had lipstick on his cheek. Nicole was planning a romantic encounter with him--she had asked him to bring the glasses from the restaurant. When he arrived, she was wearing a slinky cocktail dress and had lit candles around a full bathtub and in her bedroom. Goldman could not have gotten onto the front patio unless Nicole came out and let him through the middle gate. They met. She kissed him on the cheek. And the attack started right after that.

Lee and Baden showed how the blood spatter indicated that Goldman and Nicole were both standing for much of the fight. Goldman's blood on his leg indicates that he was upright for several minutes after suffering his first couple of wounds. The prosecution could not find a single reputable forensic pathologist who would contradict Drs. Lee and Baden on this point. They relied on their local coroner, who got shredded on cross-examination, and an FBI agent who had no formal training in forensic pathology.

Where are the bloody clothes? (Please do a little reading before you float the theory that Kardashian got them from OJ--this is ludicrous on many counts--or that OJ dumped them at LAX--LAX security confirmed that he did not, because they had tape on him from the moment his limo arrived at the airport, a fact that Pat McKenna confirmed when he interviewed the airport security staff.) Where is the knife? Why did the one witness who saw an SUV leave the area said it headed south, not north, on Bundy? Why did Nicole's dog track south, not north? Because the killer(s) headed south, away from OJ's house.

Several pathologists have explained that from Goldman's gushing blood alone, the killer(s) would have been literally drenched in blood. So why was less than one drop of blood--7/10ths of one drop--found in the Bronco? If the killer got into that Bronco after the stabbings, there should have been numerous large blood stains in the vehicle--all over the floor and the seat, at a minimum. The jury zeroed in on this fact and on the fact that the prosecution had no plausible explanation for why virtually no blood was found in the Bronco.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 30th October 2017 at 05:36 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 06:04 AM   #127
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post


No evidence suggests that Nicole was attacked first. Rather, the evidence indicates that they were attacked at the same time by at least two assailants, one of whom was left handed.
So which is it - is your theory that the son did it or that OJ AND the son did it? Suddenly we have 2 people now committing the crime.

Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post

Lee and Baden showed how the blood spatter indicated that Goldman and Nicole were both standing for much of the fight. Goldman's blood on his leg indicates that he was upright for several minutes after suffering his first couple of wounds. The prosecution could not find a single reputable forensic pathologist who would contradict Drs. Lee and Baden on this point. They relied on their local coroner, who got shredded on cross-examination, and an FBI agent who had no formal training in forensic pathology.
Please provide citations for your statement highlighted above.


Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Where are the bloody clothes? (Please do a little reading before you float the theory that Kardashian got them from OJ--this is ludicrous on many counts--or that OJ dumped them at LAX--LAX security confirmed that he did not, because they had tape on him from the moment his limo arrived at the airport, a fact that Pat McKenna confirmed when he interviewed the airport security staff.) Where is the knife? Why did the one witness who saw an SUV leave the area said it headed south, not north, on Bundy? Why did Nicole's dog track south, not north? Because the killer(s) headed south, away from OJ's house.
Have you seen the video of Kardashian picking up that bag and walking away with it?

You can't possibly know what was in that bag.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 06:12 AM   #128
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,533
Has OJ found the real killer yet?
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 07:37 AM   #129
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,501
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Has OJ found the real killer yet?
He's just now able to hit the links again. Give him a few rounds and I'm sure he'll find something.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:16 PM   #130
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
So which is it - is your theory that the son did it or that OJ AND the son did it? Suddenly we have 2 people now committing the crime.
Apparently you still have not bothered to read any of the links I've provided. I have always said that there were at least two attackers. This is not something that I have "suddenly" started saying. Dr. Henry Lee, one of the foremost forensic pathologists in the world, believes there were two killers. So do other renowned forensic pathologists like Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Cyril Wecht.

I do not think Jason was involved, although I would not be shocked to be proven wrong someday.

Quote:
Please provide citations for your statement highlighted above [that the prosecution could not get a single reputable forensic pathologist to contradict Drs. Lee and Baden on the nature of the struggle between Goldman and his killer/killers].
Just go read the trial transcript. Bosco talks about this in his book A Problem of Evidence. Sheesh, the prosecution didn't even dare call the coroner who did the autopsy for fear that they would be forced to talk about the knife that they had identified as the murder weapon at the preliminary hearing! So they called his boss and an FBI agent who was not a forensic pathologist (William Bodziak).

The prosecution desperately wanted to avoid having to talk about the alleged murder knife because it would show, among other things, that they were pressuring witnesses to lie or knowingly accepting perjury from witnesses to incriminate OJ. If they had called the coroner who did the autopsy, Dr. Golden, they would have been forced to talk about the alleged murder knife, since Golden had identified the knife as having been capable of making the wounds. But Vannatter had misled Goldman and had shown him a huge knife--a 15-inch knife--and pretended that it was just like the alleged murder knife, when in fact the knife that OJ had bought from Ross Cutlery was a tiny knife, and forensic testing proved that it had never come into contact with blood or human tissue (in fact, when the knife was found in OJ's house, it still had the price tag on it).

Quote:
Have you seen the video of Kardashian picking up that bag and walking away with it? You can't possibly know what was in that bag.
Holy cow. This myth was debunked at the trial. The editor of the video you linked conveniently cut out the part where Kardashian tries to leave the bag there! The video segment was played at the trial. This is discussed in detail in "Joseph Bosco and 10 Myths About the O.J. Simpson Case," pp. 3-5:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/boscoandojmyths.pdf
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 1st November 2017 at 01:30 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 03:26 PM   #131
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Dr. Henry Lee, one of the foremost forensic pathologists in the world, believes there were two killers.
Wasn't this because he found a second pair of footprints in one of the crime scene photographs? His infamous "there's something wrong" remark?

Of course, that second pair of footprints was an imprint in the concrete made when the walkway was originally poured.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 03:28 PM   #132
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,330
Wait a moment - OJ bought a knife from someone called Ross Cutlery?

This is huge. And hilarious.
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:31 PM   #133
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,221
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Wasn't this because he found a second pair of footprints in one of the crime scene photographs? His infamous "there's something wrong" remark?

Of course, that second pair of footprints was an imprint in the concrete made when the walkway was originally poured.
Wasn't even made by shoes, but by cement trowels. Honor dies where self interest lies.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 01:37 PM   #134
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
He was going to kill her too. But he got arrested because he killed two other people first and couldn't complete his ultimate goal.
This is based on nothing but the thin air of the media's myths about the case. Let's review a few facts, shall we?

1. OJ was in a good mood that day. The prosecution's smear that he was in a dark, angry mood at the dance recital was destroyed at the trial when they were forced to turn over the homemade video taken at the dance recital that showed OJ smiling and laughing with Denise Brown, Judy Brown, and Lou Brown, and that showed Denise and Judy kissing OJ goodbye. Kato said OJ was not upset or angry at all when he spent time with him after the recital--and this was barely an hour before the murders occurred. If you read the jurors' comments and writings, the prosecution's failure to establish a motive was one of the reasons they voted not guilty.

2. OJ called three other girls on the day of the murders to try to arrange dates. He left a voicemail for one them, and the voicemail certainly does not sound like a person who was building up to a murderous rage; rather, it sounds like a happy-go-lucky playboy who was looking for some fun.

3. Paul Barbieri had "broken up" with OJ on previous occasions because she was upset that he wasn't spending more time with her. She called that morning to "break up" because she was upset that he had decided to play golf that morning instead of be with her. When OJ was arrested, Paula ardently defended OJ and said he was not the kind of person who could kill someone. Paul also visited OJ several times in jail during the trial.

4. Nicole's closest friend in the world, Cora Fischman, testified that Nicole never said anything to her about OJ abusing her in the months leading up to the murders. Just a few weeks before the murders, OJ came over to Nicole's house to nurse her when she had the flu. A few days later, Nicole went over to OJ's house for a party and snuggled up to him in front of numerous people, as was established at the trial. We now know that the infamous entry in Nicole's diary about OJ stalking and abusing her shortly before the murders was forged.

5. OJ was out of town for much of the time in the six months leading up to the murders, as Kato confirmed in his testimony. OJ was only in town the weekend of the murders because he had flown back to attend his daughter's recital. The lady from the battered women's shelter who claimed OJ abused Nicole a couple of months before the murders did not know this, and when the defense confronted her with the fact that OJ was out of town on the day that she claimed OJ abused Nicole, she back-peddled and said it might have been a different day that week--but, oops, when the defense then showed her that OJ was out of town for nearly a week before and after that day, she back-peddled again and said that she might have been off by "a few weeks," even though she originally said that her recollection of the matter was very clear because it had made such an impression on her. Uh-huh.

6. Contrary to Denise Brown's later lie, the Browns did invite OJ to go to dinner after the dance recital, but he declined. OJ never asked if he could go to dinner with him--he was invited.

7. Cora Fischman's husband reported that OJ was the one who was ending the attempt at reconciliation, not Nicole. This would explain, among other things, OJ's conduct on the day of the murders.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 3rd November 2017 at 01:40 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:26 AM   #135
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Wasn't this because he found a second pair of footprints in one of the crime scene photographs? His infamous "there's something wrong" remark?

Of course, that second pair of footprints was an imprint in the concrete made when the walkway was originally poured.
Dr. Lee responded to the claim that the impressions were made by cement trowels. In fact, after the trial, criminalists and forensic experts from across the country sent Dr. Lee pictures of the same kind of shoeprint that he identified. Bosco discusses this in A Problem of Evidence.

Lee has written several books with lengthy sections on the OJ case. He addresses the extra footprints in them. See, for example, his section on the OJ case in Famous Crimes Revisited (2001), pp. 185-251.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 4th November 2017 at 11:27 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 01:49 AM   #136
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,221
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Dr. Lee responded to the claim that the impressions were made by cement trowels. In fact, after the trial, criminalists and forensic experts from across the country sent Dr. Lee pictures of the same kind of shoeprint that he identified. Bosco discusses this in A Problem of Evidence.

Lee has written several books with lengthy sections on the OJ case. He addresses the extra footprints in them. See, for example, his section on the OJ case in Famous Crimes Revisited (2001), pp. 185-251.
Lee "min identified" deformations in dried cement poured years ago as bloody footprints made within days of being photographed. In fact, the lines he testified "might" be a shoeprint, were, actually, exactly identical to other lines confirmed to have been the result of tools used on the wet cement. A humiliated Lee later held held his press conference to stammer his way through a silly defense, claiming he regretted ever getting involved in the trial. The same trial which made him a TV and lecture circuit celebrity, and built him a small fortune. Either he was incapable of making a correct identification, or (more likely) was providing the showmanship his employers had hired him for.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 04:30 AM   #137
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
Lee "min identified" deformations in dried cement poured years ago as bloody footprints made within days of being photographed. In fact, the lines he testified "might" be a shoeprint, were, actually, exactly identical to other lines confirmed to have been the result of tools used on the wet cement. A humiliated Lee later held held his press conference to stammer his way through a silly defense, claiming he regretted ever getting involved in the trial. The same trial which made him a TV and lecture circuit celebrity, and built him a small fortune. Either he was incapable of making a correct identification, or (more likely) was providing the showmanship his employers had hired him for.
This is a perfect example of how otherwise-intelligent people will accept laughable, junk science when it comes to the OJ case. You obviously didn't bother to read any of the sources I cited--you merely repeated your earlier claims.

Now, let's start with a little common sense: Do you really believe that Dr. Lee would identify tool-etched lines in cement as shoeprints? Do you really believe that a man with Lee's experience, training, and credentials would make a mistake that a rookie criminalist would not make? I realize this is the nonsense that the media and the prosecution folks have been feeding people for years, but stop and think about that for a minute. If you looked at tool marks in cement, do you think you would be able to tell that they were not shoe impressions? Of course you would. You and I would not make such a bizarre mistake. Do you really think that Dr. Lee did? Really?

Do you know who came up with the claim that Dr. Lee identified old tool marks in cement as shoeprints? Any idea? It was Special Agent William Bodziak, who had only a fraction of the credentials and training that Dr. Lee had. Bodziak based his fiction on the laughable claim that no shoe-sole designs would include parallel lines (yes, he said that). If Bodziak had ever read a forensic science textbook, it was probably one written by Dr. Lee. Do you know what happened after Dr. Lee testified? Joseph Bosco, an investigative journalist who was granted a seat at the trial and who wrote one of the best books ever written on the trial and the case, tells us:
These things have not changed with Dr. Lee's testimony in the Simpson case. He received almost 1,700 letters of support, which he was deeply gratified by, from law enforcement personnel from around the country, including FBI personnel superior to Agent Bodziak. He also received 75 photos of proven shoe imprints with parallel lines sent to him by criminalists and investigators from across the criminal justice spectrum. (A Problem of Evidence, p. 147)
By the time Dr. Lee testified in the OJ trial, he was already considered one of the top forensic experts in the world, if not the very best. Do you ever plan on reading Dr. Lee's response to Bodziak's claims?

Bodziak was the clown who "identified" Bruno Magli shoeprints at the crime scene and said that the prints were unique to Bruno Magli shoe soles. But we now know that 21 other shoe companies used the same shoe sole that Bruno Magli used. Bruno Magli did not make their shoe soles--they bought them from a company in Italy, Silga Gomma, and 21 other companies used that same shoe sole--the Silga Gomma U2887 shoe sole.

Moreover, incredibly, Bodziak admitted that he did not see fit to compare the alleged Bruno Magli crime-scene shoeprints with the soles of any high-end or less-expensive/copycat/knockoff casual shoes made in France or Germany or Canada or Spain or South America or America or China, etc., etc. Are you kidding me?

I'm guessing that you are not aware that Bodziak also admitted during cross-examination that there were 23 shoeprints at Bundy that could not be "matched" with Bruno Magli sole impressions. And, no, the 23 shoeprints were not made by police personnel--their shoes were checked. Let that sink in: There were 23 shoeprints at the crime scene that were not matched to any shoes that even allegedly belonged to OJ.

By the way, you might just go take a look at the shoeprints on which Bodziak based his Bruno Magli "identification." Not one of them is a complete imprint--all of them are partial impressions, and very mediocre ones at that, and they do not even include the arc area of the sole (hence, they do not show a manufacturer's logo). If I were a fair-minded juror, I would be extremely reluctant to trust a shoe-sole identification based on such mediocre, partial shoeprint evidence.

Here's a big part of the problem: You have accepted the myth that the defense presented junk science and that an ignorant, racist jury was just too dumb to understand or care about the "mountain of evidence" that the prosecution presented. Well, the truth is the exact opposite. It was the prosecution that presented laughable, absurd junk science over and over again, and got caught doing it. Go read the book by three of the OJ jurors: Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment? You will discover that they neither ignorant nor racist (by the way, three of OJ jurors were white).

Or go read the open letter written during the trial by 25 top scientists who pointed out that the way the prosecution was using the DNA results was not just invalid but spurious--one of those scientists was Dr. Kary Mullis, the guy who invented the PCR DNA testing procedure.

Finally, Dr. Lee did not act "humiliated" at his press conference. Rather, he was disgusted with the prosecution's conduct. Yes, he said he wished he'd never gotten involved with the OJ case--and he specified that he felt that way because of the prosecution's shameful conduct toward before, during, and after his testimony. He also made this clear in subsequent interviews. He noted that he had worked with DA offices all across the country and that he had never seen any DA's office behave the way the LA DA's office had behaved.

For more information on the Bruno Magli evidence, see http://miketgriffith.com/files/brunomaglishoes.htm.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 5th November 2017 at 06:16 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 04:12 PM   #138
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
Lee "min identified" deformations in dried cement poured years ago as bloody footprints made within days of being photographed. In fact, the lines he testified "might" be a shoeprint, were, actually, exactly identical to other lines confirmed to have been the result of tools used on the wet cement. A humiliated Lee later held held his press conference to stammer his way through a silly defense, claiming he regretted ever getting involved in the trial. The same trial which made him a TV and lecture circuit celebrity, and built him a small fortune. Either he was incapable of making a correct identification, or (more likely) was providing the showmanship his employers had hired him for.
This is a perfect example of how otherwise-intelligent people will accept laughable, junk science when it comes to the OJ case. You obviously didn't bother to read any of the sources I cited--you merely repeated your earlier claims.

Now, let's start with a little common sense: Do you really believe that Dr. Lee would identify tool-etched lines in cement as shoeprints? Do you really believe that a man with Lee's experience, training, and credentials would make a mistake that a rookie criminalist would not make? I realize this is the nonsense that the media and the prosecution folks have been feeding people for years, but stop and think about that for a minute. If you looked at tool marks in cement, do you think you would be able to tell that they were not shoe impressions? Of course you would. You and I would not make such a bizarre mistake. Do you really think that Dr. Lee did?

Do you know who came up with the claim that Dr. Lee identified old tool marks in cement as shoeprints? Any idea? It was FBI Special Agent William Bodziak, who had only a fraction of the credentials and training that Dr. Lee had. Bodziak based his fiction partly on the laughable claim that no shoe-sole designs would include parallel lines (yes, he said that). If Bodziak had ever read a forensic science textbook, it was probably one written by Dr. Lee. Do you know what happened after Dr. Lee testified? Joseph Bosco, an investigative journalist who was granted a seat at the trial and who wrote one of the best books ever written on the trial and the case, tells us:
These things have not changed with Dr. Lee's testimony in the Simpson case. He received almost 1,700 letters of support, which he was deeply gratified by, from law enforcement personnel from around the country, including FBI personnel superior to Agent Bodziak. He also received 75 photos of proven shoe imprints with parallel lines sent to him by criminalists and investigators from across the criminal justice spectrum. (A Problem of Evidence, p. 147)
By the time Dr. Lee testified in the OJ trial, he was already considered one of the top forensic experts in the world, if not the very best. Do you ever plan on reading Dr. Lee's response to Bodziak's claims? How about Barry Scheck's withering cross-examination of Bodziak?

Bodziak was the clown who "identified" Bruno Magli shoeprints at the crime scene and said that the prints were unique to Bruno Magli shoe soles. But we now know that 21 other shoe companies used the same shoe sole that Bruno Magli used. Bruno Magli did not make their shoe soles--they bought them from a company in Italy named Silga Gomma, and 21 other companies used that same shoe sole--the Silga Gomma U2887 shoe sole.

Moreover, incredibly, Bodziak admitted that he did not see fit to compare the alleged Bruno Magli crime-scene shoeprints with the soles of any high-end or less-expensive/copycat/knockoff casual shoes made in France or Germany or Canada or Spain or South America or America or China, etc., etc. Are you kidding me?

I'm guessing that you are not aware that Bodziak also admitted during cross-examination by Robert Baker at the civil trial that there were 23 shoeprints at Bundy that could not be "matched" with Bruno Magli sole impressions. And, no, the 23 shoeprints were not made by police personnel--their shoes were checked. Let that sink in: There were 23 shoeprints at the crime scene that were not matched to any shoes that even allegedly belonged to OJ.

By the way, you might just go take a look at the shoeprints on which Bodziak based his Bruno Magli identification. Not one of them is a complete imprint--they are all partial impressions, and very mediocre ones at that; they do not even include the arc area of the sole (hence, they do not show a manufacturer's logo). If I were a fair-minded juror, I would be extremely reluctant to trust a shoe-sole identification based on such mediocre, partial shoeprint evidence.

Part of the problem is that you and others have accepted the myth that the defense presented junk science and that an ignorant, racist jury was just too dumb to understand or care about the "mountain of evidence" that the prosecution presented. Well, the truth is the exact opposite. It was the prosecution that presented laughable, absurd junk science over and over again, and got caught doing it. Go read the book by three of the OJ jurors: Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment? You will discover that they were neither ignorant nor racist (by the way, three of the OJ jurors were white).

Or go read the open letter written during the trial by 25 top scientists who pointed out that the way the prosecution was using the DNA results was not just invalid but spurious--one of those scientists was Dr. Kary Mullis, the guy who invented the PCR DNA testing procedure that the prosecution was using.

Finally, Dr. Lee did not act "humiliated" at his press conference. Rather, he was disgusted with the prosecution's conduct. Yes, he said he wished he'd never gotten involved in the OJ case--and he specified that he felt that way because of the prosecution's shameful conduct before, during, and after his testimony. He also made this clear in subsequent interviews. He noted that he had worked with DA offices all across the country and that he had never seen any DA's office behave the way the LA DA's office had behaved.

For more information on the Bruno Magli evidence, see http://miketgriffith.com/files/brunomaglishoes.htm.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 5th November 2017 at 06:11 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 06:50 AM   #139
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,523
Why in the blue hell were those two threads merged? One's from 5 years ago.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 10:58 AM   #140
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,717
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post

Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
... For more information on the Bruno Magli evidence, see http://miketgriffith.com/files/brunomaglishoes.htm.

Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
... For more information on the Bruno Magli evidence, see http://miketgriffith.com/files/brunomaglishoes.htm.

The source you cite for a great deal of what you're passing on is Michael Griffith's website. Over the years I've read many books and articles -- some of which sounded very authoritative and were massively footnoted -- which turned out to promoting nonsense. There's a cottage industry in writing that kind of book on the paranormal and on conspiracy theories.

From other things Michael Griffith is described as having written, he sounds very much like that kind of author. I realize that kind of author can be very persuasive-sounding if one simply reads what they've written and don't fact-check it. A lot of people have been gulled on a lot of topics by such writings.

That's why it's good to see whether other people who have read these books and fact-checked them agree the book is well-researched and present information accurately and honestly or whether instead other people who have read these books and fact-checked them have found them to be poorly-researched and to present information inaccurately or misleadingly.

If Griffith's work is worth relying on, then there should be a number of people you can point me to who have good reputations for honesty, who are knowledgeable about the Simpson case, and who agree that what Griffith says has merit. Could you identify three reputable sources who have fact-checked Griffith and who say that what Griffith has written is substantially correct and worth the time it would take to read?

As in science, peer review is a good way of determining which things have merit and which don't. If what Griffith presents is factually correct then others looking at the same things will be able to see it. If there aren't a good number of reputable people knowledgeable about the Simpson case who are publicly supporting what Griffith has written, and who are using what Griffith wrote in their own writings about the Simpson case, then it's more likely that Griffith is another person like Jerome Corsi, John G. Fuller, Charles Berlitz, George Grant, and numerous others who make money making fiction sound like fact.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 01:22 PM   #141
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,772
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why in the blue hell were those two threads merged? One's from 5 years ago.

Someone resurrected the old one and people started posting in it again. I suppose they didn't want two threads on the same topic open and active at the same time.

It's a bit of a dog's breakfast though.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 01:32 PM   #142
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,662
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
No, not me.

This is the title of a new book (about an old subject) I just saw at the library.

William C. Dear, private investigator, has amassed enough evidence to convince me that O.J.'s son Jason is a possible suspect.

He had a history of assault and suicide attempts -- which involved knives -- on at least four occasions. This book claims that he has "intermittent rage disorder" which may relate to his epilepsy. He takes Depakote (valproic acid) for this condition. One way our sleuth knows this is by the time-honored p.i. method of going through the trash.

Maybe Jason Simpson left his chef's job at 10 pm, carrying his set of chef's knives, and had just enough time to commit the murders?

I've not read enough of the book nor thought through the issues. No particular pony in this race. Just thought this might be a fun thread for JREF.

The book is written in a rather maddening style if you want a Bugliosi-style summary of pros and cons. It means to be entertaining, and it is. Sometimes it's unintentionally funny, in that true-crime sort of way.

I'd never heard Jason Simpson proposed as a suspect.

It's not his epilepsy or illegal drug use as such that makes me "like" him -- as they say on the cop shows -- it's the prior violent history.

Much depends on the alibi and timing.

Criticize William Dear's book. I don't really have an opinion, other than that O.J. probably was involved somehow, and that the LAPD did a sloppy job.
We didn't have access to the kids medical files at the time, but more than a few outside cop observers (including me) wondered if the kid wasn't the sole actor or may have been involved in the crime with his father. Common joke was that if the truth was known and the kid was the sole actor, O.J. would have gone from murder suspect to Father of the Year in certain circles.

You bet they did. LAPD isn't exactly held in high regard by their fellow agencies. Same goes for LASD.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 04:29 PM   #143
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
The source you cite for a great deal of what you're passing on is Michael Griffith's website. Over the years I've read many books and articles -- some of which sounded very authoritative and were massively footnoted -- which turned out to promoting nonsense. There's a cottage industry in writing that kind of book on the paranormal and on conspiracy theories.

From other things Michael Griffith is described as having written, he sounds very much like that kind of author. I realize that kind of author can be very persuasive-sounding if one simply reads what they've written and don't fact-check it. A lot of people have been gulled on a lot of topics by such writings.

That's why it's good to see whether other people who have read these books and fact-checked them agree the book is well-researched and present information accurately and honestly or whether instead other people who have read these books and fact-checked them have found them to be poorly-researched and to present information inaccurately or misleadingly.

If Griffith's work is worth relying on, then there should be a number of people you can point me to who have good reputations for honesty, who are knowledgeable about the Simpson case, and who agree that what Griffith says has merit. Could you identify three reputable sources who have fact-checked Griffith and who say that what Griffith has written is substantially correct and worth the time it would take to read?

As in science, peer review is a good way of determining which things have merit and which don't. If what Griffith presents is factually correct then others looking at the same things will be able to see it. If there aren't a good number of reputable people knowledgeable about the Simpson case who are publicly supporting what Griffith has written, and who are using what Griffith wrote in their own writings about the Simpson case, then it's more likely that Griffith is another person like Jerome Corsi, John G. Fuller, Charles Berlitz, George Grant, and numerous others who make money making fiction sound like fact.
As chance would have it, I am Mike Griffith, and there are plenty of scholars who agree with what I have written on the OJ case, on the JFK case, on Pearl Harbor, and on the Civil War.

I have not written on paranormal issues.

I think we have seen in this thread that my arguments on the OJ case are factual and abundantly documented.

Now, a few points in reply to previous responses:

* If the right-handed OJ was the killer, why would Goldman have grabbed his left hand? That makes no sense. If you're being attacked and the guy has the knife in the right hand, you're going to try grab his right wrist or arm, not his left hand.

* Bodziak had not even read Dr. Lee's testimony when the prosecution brought Bodziak in to rebut Lee's testimony, and, incredibly, he was not aware that Dr. Lee had considerable experience with analyzing shoe impressions. Indeed, Bodziak admitted on cross-examination that he had only skimmed through some of Dr. Lee's books.

* Phillip Baker dismantled Bodziak at the civil trial. He exposed the fact that Bodziak did not even know about several shoeprints because the LAPD did not give them to him (or so Bodziak said--he claimed the LAPD never showed him the photos).

* OJ did in fact make some effort to investigate the case after the criminal trial. He supported the OMIG group and other investigators to follow leads that the LAPD ignored. However, when he was slapped with the absurd and illegal $33.5 million judgment at the civil trial, obviously his means to investigate the case were severely reduced. (If there were ever a rigged trial, the civil trial was it.)

* The LAPD never managed to get around to typing the blood on the handrail at Nicole's house.

* The LAPD failed to collect the multiple blood spots on Nicole's back. They are visible in the crime-scene photos of Nicole's body. Detective Lange claimed that he ordered the blood spots collected but that someone made a "mistake" and they were never collected.

* The jury zeroed in on the prosecution's utter failure to establish a motive. The prosecution's lie that OJ was in a dark rage that evening was blown to pieces by the dance recital video tape and by Kato Kaelin--and by the fact that initially Denise Brown said nothing about OJ being in a dark, angry mood at the recital, even though she was specifically asked about OJ's demeanor.

* Faced with the fact that the back-gate blood contained DNA concentrations staggeringly higher than any other blood stain at the crime scene, the prosecution resorted to theorizing that the back-gate blood was in better shape because, unlike the other Bundy drops, it was not left in a hot van for several hours! As Barry Scheck noted, this was after the prosecution had spent months denying that leaving blood swatches in a hot van for hours would degrade them!

* Robert Blaiser proved from crime-scene photos and Willie Ford's video that the socks were planted on the OJ's floor and were not there when Ford made the video:
MR. BLASIER: This is important. Again, I want to walk you through these pictures. You've got the one on the left, which there's no card on the ground, so we know (indicating to photo entitled Bedroom) that this is before – this picture is taken -- of these three pictures, this one had to be taken first in the sequence of things.

These two pictures up here (indicating) were probably taken right around the same time. You've got the card on the ground, the number 13 card on the ground. You can barely see it in the top one, but it's there. And this is taken, presumably, right before collection. They put the card down.

Now, Mr. Fung has put the card down and is getting ready to collect. And you know that in the picture on the left, the earlier picture (indicating to photo entitled Bedroom), this strap is down on the bed; socks are still here. In this picture, the socks are here with this strap down.

Over here (indicating), to the top right-hand picture, the socks are The card is there, but now the strap has been moved up; we don't know how. (Indicating to photo entitled Socks on Rug.) Maybe Mr. Fung lifted it. There's nothing mysterious about that, the fact that the photograph shows that, while those socks are still on the ground, before they've been collected. Folks, the strap on the bed is up.

Now, let's compare this with the Willy Ford video of -- Mr. Ford took a video of this room, and he took a video of this area. And if that video shows a bed with the strap up, then maybe they're right. Maybe the socks had already been collected. But if that video shows a bed with the strap down, then we know these socks were planted there, because this is before they were collected. The strap goes up, the socks are still on the ground. If Willy Ford's video shows the straps down, that means, at some point, when he took his video, it was before that, and there were no socks there. Play the video.
(Videotape played, displaying 3:13 p.m, 6/13/94.)

MR. BLASIER: Stop right there. You can back up a little, Phil. You can start to see it here. Okay, go a little further. (Mr. P. Baker complies.)

MR. BLASIER: Stop it. There it is. There it is. The strap is down, folks. This picture was taken before that one, and there are no socks on the ground. Those socks were put there. They were put there before they were collected by the Los Angeles Police Department. Blood was put on them at some point that has EDTA on it. (Civil trial, January 23, 1997, volume 48)
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 8th November 2017 at 04:31 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 05:06 PM   #144
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
As chance would have it, I am Mike Griffith, and there are plenty of scholars who agree with what I have written on the OJ case, on the JFK case, on Pearl Harbor, and on the Civil War.
No, you don't say.

Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
I have not written on paranormal issues.

I think we have seen in this thread that my arguments on the OJ case are factual and abundantly documented.
No, we haven't seen any documentation whatsoever of your arguments. You simply say to "go read the transcripts" or "Lee wouldn't ever make a mistake," etc.

You have not produced one single source in this entire thread. Provide links to each source and a quotes from each source to back up your assertions.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 05:24 PM   #145
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,662
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
No, you don't say.



No, we haven't seen any documentation whatsoever of your arguments. You simply say to "go read the transcripts" or "Lee wouldn't ever make a mistake," etc.

You have not produced one single source in this entire thread. Provide links to each source and a quotes from each source to back up your assertions.
I'm familiar with his JFK material, and based on that I'm unconvinced he has any better insight into anything else.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 06:41 PM   #146
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,841
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
We didn't have access to the kids medical files at the time, but more than a few outside cop observers (including me) wondered if the kid wasn't the sole actor or may have been involved in the crime with his father. Common joke was that if the truth was known and the kid was the sole actor, O.J. would have gone from murder suspect to Father of the Year in certain circles.

You bet they did. LAPD isn't exactly held in high regard by their fellow agencies. Same goes for LASD.
My bestie at work was black and the majority of his friends were certain that Jason was involved. Made me pause cuz I'd never imagined that.
__________________
What a time to be alive! It's like the collapse of Rome but with WiFi

Basically, if the GOP doesn't want to be called the white supremacy party, they should stop acting like they are.
-Mumbles
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 06:46 PM   #147
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,662
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
My bestie at work was black and the majority of his friends were certain that Jason was involved. Made me pause cuz I'd never imagined that.
I'm not looking for a shot at the MDC, but that premise was being considered, at least by many outside observers like me.

What LAPD thought about it, I have no idea.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 07:30 PM   #148
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,717
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
As chance would have it, I am Mike Griffith, and there are plenty of scholars who agree with what I have written on the OJ case...

Ah, good! In that case it should be easy for you to provide the names of reputable people who have fact-checked what you've written and will attest to it being well-researched and to it being a fair and accurate representation of the facts. Please provide links to reviews saying this and/or to articles by reputable people which are based on what you've written.

I asked for the name of three such people in my previous post. You haven't provided any yet.

"Scholars" is not sufficient. That simply means someone who has studied a matter -- not someone who has actually looked at primary sources and done competent fact-checking. It's possible to find scholars who will agree with almost anything, from astrology to a belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

The question is not whether you can find random "scholars" who agree with what you've written, it's whether you can find people who are respected people familiar with the facts of the Simpson case who agree with what you've written. If there are such people, it should not be difficult for you to provide us with their names (and links to their website articles saying this, or to published books or articles saying this).
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 09:50 PM   #149
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,078
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I'm not looking for a shot at the MDC, but that premise was being considered, at least by many outside observers like me.

What LAPD thought about it, I have no idea.
Surely the LAPD isn't so inept that they would ignore an obvious suspect, especially one with a psychiatric and criminal history. What did they conclude?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 10:42 PM   #150
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,662
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Surely the LAPD isn't so inept that they would ignore an obvious suspect, especially one with a psychiatric and criminal history. What did they conclude?
Facts not in evidence.

They had the earlier complaints from Nicole wrt abuse by O.J. The investigators involved might well have fixated on the low hanging fruit, no fun pun intended.

Like I said, lot's of cops had the same questions about the son, and I've never encountered any account from inside LAPD wrt the sons possible involvement.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 02:27 AM   #151
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,750
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Have you seen the video of Kardashian picking up that bag and walking away with it?

You can't possibly know what was in that bag.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Take it as you will.....
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 11:05 AM   #152
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Ok. Thanks. Well, bobtaftfan, John Jones is saying that your sources are, what's the word I'm looking for, wrong. Or maybe lying.

And he's seeming to agree with what I read. You said that the concentrations of EDTA measured were very high, but I read that they were very low, and John says so low that the results would actually be considered negative for EDTA. Is it worth pursuing further? Do your sources have anything to refute John's assertions?
Ok, let's get a few facts straight:

One, John Jones is the only one saying there was no EDTA in the back-gate blood. Even the prosecution did not deny that there was EDTA in that blood and in the sock blood.

Two, you might break down and read Dr. Frederic Rieders' testimony. Dr. Rieders' was a leading toxicologist at the time.

Three, you might also break down and watch the Discovery Channel's documentary The Case of O.J. Simpson. It's on YouTube.

Four, you might break down and read Professor William Thompson's article on DNA evidence in the OJ trial: http://miketgriffith.com/files/thompsonarticle.pdf.

Five, no one has yet provided a plausible innocent explanation for how the back-gate blood could have had DNA concentrations that were vastly higher than any of the other Bundy blood, after supposedly sitting out exposed to the elements for three weeks in mid-June to early July Southern California weather. All the rest of the blood, both at Bundy and at Rockingham, degraded very quickly, including the blood on the Bundy front gate. So what magical fairy dust enabled the back-gate blood to endure the elements for three weeks and emerge with DNA concentrations that dwarfed those of all the other Bundy blood spots?

Six, amazingly, the back-gate blood also had yield gels that proved the blood had not degraded. There is a separate test for degradation, separate from the DNA test, and the back-gate blood's yield gels showed the blood had not degraded. Now, how can that be after three weeks on metal exposed to the elements, when all the other blood that was exposed to the elements degraded in a matter of hours? Indeed, Mazzola noted that one of the Rockingham drops degraded so much that it changed color just between the time she first saw it and the next time she saw it an hour or two later.

Barry Scheck:
Now, let's go to the back gate. . . .

[Item] 117 was the stain taken from the back gate, and you know, there was something very strong about it, wasn't there? The blood drops at Bundy were degraded and had extremely low DNA concentrations. 117 had enough for an RFLP test. It was 27 times as much as [item] 47, the first blood drop, 45 times as much as [item] 48, 270 times as much as [item] 49, 51 times as much as [item] 50, 11 times as much as [item] 52. This slide, like most of them I'm going to show you, is in evidence and you know who brought us that testimony; Gary Sims from the Department of Justice.

Could we have the next slide?

That is 117, the one on the gate. Do them all. This is [item] 115 and [item] 116, the one on the lower parts of the gate. 15 times as much [DNA] as [item] 47, 22 times as much as [item] 48, 135 times as much as [item] 49, 25 times as much as [item] 50, six times as much as [item] 52. This supposedly has been out there from June 12th to July 3rd. And--kill that.

There is no question sunlight degrades DNA. Moisture and bacteria degrade DNA. Why are these concentrations so much higher? And another point. There is DNA concentrations but there is also a separate test, as you have learned when you look at those yield gels, for degradation. These samples are not degraded. How can that be? Nothing.

Now, there is something interesting here, too. The Prosecution is now saying, well, it is on a different surface than the Bundy blood drops. Bundy blood drops are on cement. This is on a metal gate, painted metal gate. So there is something magical about this that will prevent it from degrading at all in over three weeks. It is--remember, the blood drop no. [Item] 50 is just a few feet from this bottom portion of the gate that is very, very close to the surface and all the same environmental insults.

But you know what proves this argument totally fallacious? And I asked this question of Gary Sims, and you can go back. Remember the blood from the handrail? That was one of the last questions I asked him. It is very curious to me that they never typed that. They are still testing. Remember the blood on the handrail as you are leading up Bundy? Same kind of surface. Totally degraded. Remember the samples from the front gate? There was blood on the front gate. Gary Sims' testimony. No question about that, severely degraded, just like the other samples from Bundy. So those are the same kind of surfaces, so this explanation don't pass the laugh test. (Criminal trial transcript, September 28, 1995)
And then there's the fact that the back-gate blood does *not* appear on the back gate in the June 13 photo of the gate. Professor Thompson:
A photograph taken the day after the crime shows no blood in the area of the rear gate where the largest and most prominent stain was later found. Barry Scheck introduced this photo during his cross-examination of criminalist Dennis Fung. After displaying a photograph of the stains that Fung collected on July 3, Scheck then showed the photograph of the rear gate taken on June 13. In one of the more memorable moments of the trial, Scheck pointed to
the area where the largest stain should have been and demanded, "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Fung had no answer, nor was Scheck's question ever answered by the prosecution. ("DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial," Colorado Law Review, Fall 1996, p. 6, http://miketgriffith.com/files/thompsonarticle.pdf)
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 9th November 2017 at 12:23 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 11:13 AM   #153
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,533
This is even less fun the second time around
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 01:09 PM   #154
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
This is even less fun the second time around
Oh, ok. Can you explain why the 6/13 photo of the back gate shows no blood where the LAPD said they later found blood? Professor Thompson:
A photograph taken the day after the crime shows no blood in the area of the rear gate where the largest and most prominent stain was later found. Barry Scheck introduced this photo during his cross-examination of criminalist Dennis Fung. After displaying a photograph of the stains that Fung collected on July 3, Scheck then showed the photograph of the rear gate taken on June 13. In one of the more memorable moments of the trial, Scheck pointed to the area where the largest stain should have been and demanded, "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Fung had no answer, nor was Scheck's question ever answered by the prosecution. ("DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial," Colorado Law Review, Fall 1996, p. 6, http://miketgriffith.com/files/thompsonarticle.pdf)
Can you explain how the back-gate blood had DNA concentrations vastly higher than any other Bundy blood drops, and how it had yield gels that showed no degradation, after supposedly sitting exposed to the elements for three weeks?

Can you explain the photographic evidence that Blasier presented, and that the prosecution never answered, that proved the socks were not on OJ's bedroom floor before Fung entered the room?

Can you explain how underbelly hair from Nicole's dog got on the Rockingham glove? The only rational theory for that hair is that the dog walked over the glove after the killers left, and then Fuhrman picked up the glove and took it to Rockingham.

Can you explain the EDTA in the sock blood, given the fact that the prosecution initially asked for an EDTA test because they said that the absence of EDTA would prove the sock blood was not planted? (Remember that no EDTA was found on the sock, only in the sock blood, and that laundry soap contains only extremely small trace amounts of EDTA anyway.)

Can you explain how OJ had no bruises whatsoever on his face, head, neck, shoulders, and arms? (You're not gonna go with the bizarre claim that all of Goldman's punches hit the nearby wall or tree, are you? If so, why were no wall or tree debris found in any of Goldman's wounds on his hands?)

If Goldman was killed in less than a minute, how did blood from his non-fatal wounds have time to drip and run all the way down into his shoes (they were able to trace the blood flow from the points of entry down to his feet)? (Dr. Lee and Dr. Baden, and a host of other forensic experts, have pointed out that this blood travel indicates the fight lasted at least 3 or 4 minutes.)
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 9th November 2017 at 01:10 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 01:24 PM   #155
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,717
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
This article is by Brian Heiss, one of the most careful and thorough researchers on the case.

Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Here's a 23-minute documentary on the half-inch cut by Brian Heiss, one of the leading scholars on the OJ Simpson case

If Brian Heiss is "one of the leading scholars", one would think there'd be newspaper stories and magazine articles available about him and his work. Instead, I can't even find a Wikipedia listing for him. Who exactly is it who considers him a "leading scholar", and what criteria did they use to assign that designation?

Oh -- and if you're in contact with Brian Heiss you might let him know that there's apparently a person using the name "Brian Heiss" who posts about the OJ Simpson case on the white supremacist AryanSkynet website.

I'm not going to visit a dubious site like that one to see what that Brian Heiss has been posting, but it turns up prominently in a Google search for Brian Heiss. I assume a leading scholar wouldn't want to be confused with a wacky white supremacist, so he'll probably appreciate you alerting him to this other Brian Heiss before his reputation is damaged too badly by people thinking it's him.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 02:52 PM   #156
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
If Brian Heiss is "one of the leading scholars", one would think there'd be newspaper stories and magazine articles available about him and his work. Instead, I can't even find a Wikipedia listing for him. Who exactly is it who considers him a "leading scholar", and what criteria did they use to assign that designation?

Oh -- and if you're in contact with Brian Heiss you might let him know that there's apparently a person using the name "Brian Heiss" who posts about the OJ Simpson case on the white supremacist AryanSkynet website.

I'm not going to visit a dubious site like that one to see what that Brian Heiss has been posting, but it turns up prominently in a Google search for Brian Heiss. I assume a leading scholar wouldn't want to be confused with a wacky white supremacist, so he'll probably appreciate you alerting him to this other Brian Heiss before his reputation is damaged too badly by people thinking it's him.
If you had gathered enough objectivity and intellectual curiosity to visit Brian Heiss's site, you would know how silly your polemic about him is. No, Brian Heiss is not a white supremacist. If you had visited his site, you would have figured this our pretty quickly. He has spent much his career exposing white supremacists and attacking their agenda.

Brian Heiss is one of the few OJ case researchers with whom/to whom former prosecution and defense team members and expert witnesses will talk and respond. Why? Because he is known for sticking strictly to facts and for doing exhaustive research.

Brian's knowledge of the case is encyclopedic. Most people who read my stuff on the OJ case think I have a pretty good handle on the case, but Brian's knowledge is far more extensive. Go to YouTube and see how many times Brian has been interviewed about the OJ case (and those interviews are only a fraction of the interviews he has granted).

So, perhaps now you will break down and dare yourself to watch his video that I linked for you, and perhaps even read one or two of his research articles, such as his articles on the evidence that key entries in Nicole's diary were forged.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 9th November 2017 at 02:54 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:29 PM   #157
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,717
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
No, Brian Heiss is not a white supremacist. If you had visited his site, you would have figured this our pretty quickly. He has spent much his career exposing white supremacists and attacking their agenda.

Glad to hear that.

Quote:
Brian Heiss is one of the few OJ case researchers with whom/to whom former prosecution and defense team members and expert witnesses will talk and respond. Why? Because he is known for sticking strictly to facts and for doing exhaustive research.

Known to whom? There is no Wikipedia article about him, which I would expect if he is a highly respected scholar on this topic. There are no newspaper or magazine articles about him or his work that I could locate, which I would expect if he is a highly respected scholar on this topic. There are no newspaper or magazine articles by him about his work, which I would expect if he is a highly respected scholar on this topic.

Quote:
Go to YouTube and see how many times Brian has been interviewed about the OJ case...

Sorry, I'm very short on time this month and do not have time for watching such videos. I can read much faster than I can watch a video, so if you truly think any of these videos are worth people's time please link to a transcript and/or quote a few items from the video you think are especially noteworthy.

In general I've found that when people have solid facts supported by evidence they are not hesitant to state the facts and their sources for the facts plainly and clearly. When they do not have solid facts, and when their sources for their claims are dubious, they are more inclined to post links to books, websites, or videos and ask people to read or watch the whole thing. Looking through this thread, it looks to me like you make a lot of claims and assertions but you don't state clearly what the primary sources supporting these claims are and instead refer people to your website and to videos.

If as you say a lot of people have read your work, yet none of the people familiar with the facts of the case are willing to come forward and state (in newspaper articles, magazine articles, or books they write) that they respect your research and your ability to present the facts accurately, that makes me not inclined to spend a lot of time wading through your website to see if I can dredge out of it what you're not willing to present here clearly yourself.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 05:03 AM   #158
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,019
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post





Sorry, I'm very short on time this month and do not have time for watching such videos. I can read much faster than I can watch a video, so if you truly think any of these videos are worth people's time please link to a transcript and/or quote a few items from the video you think are especially noteworthy.

In general I've found that when people have solid facts supported by evidence they are not hesitant to state the facts and their sources for the facts plainly and clearly. When they do not have solid facts, and when their sources for their claims are dubious, they are more inclined to post links to books, websites, or videos and ask people to read or watch the whole thing. Looking through this thread, it looks to me like you make a lot of claims and assertions but you don't state clearly what the primary sources supporting these claims are and instead refer people to your website and to videos.
Exactly. I also requested this. Perhaps he is not familiar with the way it works around here - when you make assertions, you are expected to back them up with evidence. Evidence that does not require someone to read novels or thousand-page transcripts or really anything. You cite the statement(s), page numbers, line numbers or time stamp (in the case of a video) which back up your claims and link to the source document from where you obtained them. Easy peasy, at least for most people.

If you can't do that, then your claims are worthless.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 10:50 AM   #159
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,662
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Snipped...

Can you explain how underbelly hair from Nicole's dog got on the Rockingham glove? The only rational theory for that hair is that the dog walked over the glove after the killers left, and then Fuhrman picked up the glove and took it to Rockingham.

Snipped

Can you explain how OJ had no bruises whatsoever on his face, head, neck, shoulders, and arms? (You're not gonna go with the bizarre claim that all of Goldman's punches hit the nearby wall or tree, are you? If so, why were no wall or tree debris found in any of Goldman's wounds on his hands?)

Snipped
1. Never had a dog (or cat) in your life? If someone is in an area that the pet inhabits there is a good chance that when they leave they are going to have pet hairs on their clothing.

The fact that the hair was from the belly does not mean that the dog would have had to walk over the glove for the hair to be there. It could have been transferred from either of the victims to the glove during the murders.

2. Goldman wasn't any type of trained fighter. His hand injuries (abrasions) were determined to be from struggling in the enclosed area where he fell, and the cuts in his hands that were determined to be defensive from Goldman attempting to fend off his attacker.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 03:36 PM   #160
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Glad to hear that.

Known to whom? There is no Wikipedia article about him, which I would expect if he is a highly respected scholar on this topic. There are no newspaper or magazine articles about him or his work that I could locate, which I would expect if he is a highly respected scholar on this topic. There are no newspaper or magazine articles by him about his work, which I would expect if he is a highly respected scholar on this topic.

Sorry, I'm very short on time this month and do not have time for watching such videos. I can read much faster than I can watch a video, so if you truly think any of these videos are worth people's time please link to a transcript and/or quote a few items from the video you think are especially noteworthy.

In general I've found that when people have solid facts supported by evidence they are not hesitant to state the facts and their sources for the facts plainly and clearly. When they do not have solid facts, and when their sources for their claims are dubious, they are more inclined to post links to books, websites, or videos and ask people to read or watch the whole thing. Looking through this thread, it looks to me like you make a lot of claims and assertions but you don't state clearly what the primary sources supporting these claims are and instead refer people to your website and to videos.

If as you say a lot of people have read your work, yet none of the people familiar with the facts of the case are willing to come forward and state (in newspaper articles, magazine articles, or books they write) that they respect your research and your ability to present the facts accurately, that makes me not inclined to spend a lot of time wading through your website to see if I can dredge out of it what you're not willing to present here clearly yourself.
In other words, you still have not bothered to read my research or Brian Heiss's research, or else you would know that I cite and quote numerous primary sources and that Brian Heiss uses them extensively.

It also seems that you have not read Professor William Thompson's article "DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial," published in the Colorado Law Review, which article I have linked at least twice in this thread. Dr. Thompson is a professor of criminology at UC Irvine and has an excellent reputation among his peers.

It further seems like you have not bothered to read any of Dr. Henry Lee's extensive writings on the OJ case, such as his Cracking Cases book and his Famous Crimes Revisited book. No, you would rather rely on an FBI hack brought in by the prosecution because they could not get a single reputable forensic expert to come in and challenge Dr. Lee's testimony. Their FBI hack was forced to admit that he had not even read all of Dr. Lee's testimony (he'd watched "most" of it on video tape) and did not even know that Dr. Lee had extensive experience with shoeprint evidence.

Why don't you contact other OJ case researchers and ask them if they know who Brian Heiss is? Why don't you check out how many interviews have been done with Brian Heiss? Why don't you check out other OJ sites and see how many link to Brian Heiss's sites?

You and others have done nothing but repeat common myths about the case, and you seem to be looking for any excuse not to read anything that challenges those myths.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 10th November 2017 at 03:41 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.