+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) (/showthread.php?tid=245341)
Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - pRICE cUBE - 08-22-2020
I had always wondered if OJ didn't commit the crimes but knew who did. His statement, "find the actual killer or killers" always struck me as odd and I could never put a finger on it. I have not made any conclusions after watching this video but it seems to raise some interesting questions involving these murders.
One thing that alway puzzled me is how very little blood was in OJ's Bronco because the murders were brutal multiple stabbings. Blood should have been everywhere on the person committing the cat and then in the vehicle used as a get away.
This is an old video, probably full of holes but there are some interesting points. I am not stating any of this is fact. Maybe it explains whey OJ's defense team was able to plant so many seeds of doubt in the prosecution case. Some of the "evidence" raises some interesting questions. Video is possibly NSFW, they show some gruesome evidence photos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq_kIKSe_XM
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? - Sarcany - 08-22-2020
Are you suggesting that Kato did it?
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? - pRICE cUBE - 08-22-2020
Sarcany wrote:
Are you suggesting that Kato did it?
[spoiler=Spoiler]
Through multiple pieces of evidence the PI in the video believes that OJ's son Jason is the murderer and OJ helped him cover up the crime.
[/spoiler]
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? - Buzz - 08-22-2020
OJ knows...
==
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? - Sarcany - 08-22-2020
pRICE cUBE wrote:
[quote=Sarcany]
Are you suggesting that Kato did it?
[spoiler=Spoiler]
Through multiple pieces of evidence the PI in the video believes that OJ's son Jason is the murderer and OJ helped him cover up the crime.
[/spoiler]
All based on a crazy book full of made up stuff. Every allegation was looked into and discredited by the Village Voice.
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? - pRICE cUBE - 08-22-2020
Sarcany wrote:
[quote=pRICE cUBE]
[quote=Sarcany]
Are you suggesting that Kato did it?
[spoiler=Spoiler]
Through multiple pieces of evidence the PI in the video believes that OJ's son Jason is the murderer and OJ helped him cover up the crime.
[/spoiler]
All based on a crazy book full of made up stuff. Every allegation was looked into and discredited by the Village Voice.
Found the link you mentioned. Looks like it is a long story. I will give it a steady read https://www.villagevoice.com/2012/04/03/bill-dear-is-full-of-it-and-i-can-prove-it/
I do still wonder about the lack of blood in the Bronco though. That murder scene was crazy mess.
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? - Sarcany - 08-22-2020
pRICE cUBE wrote:
I do still wonder about the lack of blood in the Bronco though. That murder scene was crazy mess.
I have not discounted the possibility that Kato did it.
Just look at those dead killer-eyes. He can't even look up at the camera.
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - Dennis S - 08-22-2020
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - Sarcany - 08-22-2020
Dennis S wrote:
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.
Dunno if they were too small. He was already wearing cotton gloves while trying to put skin-tight driving gloves on over them.
The prosecutors set themselves up for failure. They were focused on making good TV and securing book/movie rights rather than serving their oath and duty to the law and justice.
Re: Here's a weekend rabbit hole for you: O.J was guilty, but not of the actual murders? (possibly NSFW) - pRICE cUBE - 08-22-2020
Sarcany wrote:
[quote=Dennis S]
I always though the the gloves thing was bogus - If they don't fit, you must acquit. If he needed some gloves to hide the fingerprints, he would use whatever was handy, even if they were too small.
Dunno if they were too small. He was already wearing cotton gloves while trying to put skin-tight driving gloves on over them.
The prosecutors set themselves up for failure. They were focused on making good TV and securing book/movie rights rather than serving their oath and duty to the law and justice.
Is it your assertion that OJ committed the murders and the investigators/prosecution botched it?