Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Is O.J. Innocent? The Missing Evidenc...

Reality TVClubHouse Discussions: Other Reality Shows: Is O.J. Innocent? The Missing Evidence (w/Big Brother winner investigating) users admin

Author Message


Sunday, January 15, 2017 - 6:18 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Willwillbee a private message Print Post    
tonight 8-10pm CST new documentary on channel ID

Derrick (BB 16 winner) & police detective investigates new theories and never-before-seen evidence in the O.J. Simpson case

Forensic psychologist Dr. Kris Mohandie, police Sgt. Derrick Levasseur and private investigator William C. Dear reexamine the slayings

Documentary produced by Martin Sheen.

Were Two Attackers Involved in Nicole Brown Simpson’s Murder? New TV Series Takes a Look

“What’s really important is the fact that we have two sets of bloody footprints, both coming and going ,” one investigator says.



Monday, January 16, 2017 - 7:29 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
Yep, two random guys with access to OJ's shoes and gloves and his gated mansion to throw one of the gloves.



Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - 2:29 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Zgoodgirl a private message Print Post    
I thought that was Derrick from BB when I saw the commercial.
I wonder how he got that gig.



Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - 2:36 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Holly a private message Print Post    
The new model Ford Bronco will be released just about the same time that OJ will.

Maybe he'll buy one and use it to start the manhunt for his wife's killer.



Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - 3:44 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Tresbien a private message Print Post    
And don't forget the rarity of those Bruno Magli shoes it was later proved he owned and wore. You made me laugh Holly!

I never read OJ's if I did it book. Did he indicate having help if he did it?



Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - 8:06 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
Tresbien.. I read it (only because the small price went to the GOLDMANS who own the book.

But I don't remember him implicating a helper.. there were many who thought his older son was involved.

I believe he spent much time trashing Nicole.

Anyway, maybe after this case they can jump on the "let's solve the Jonbenet Ramsay case".. we have plenty of those.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 2:28 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Willwillbee a private message Print Post    
Episode 5 they discuss the book where OJ says he had help from a character called "Charlie".

6 hours & they conclude that it looks like OJ did it.

Looks like they are trying to stir up a case to get Jason charged as an accomplice, but the eyewitness says Jason never left the car. Still an accomplice, if true, but I think the main motive is to get OJ held responsible in criminal court. HE can't be charged due to double jeopardy, but if Jason is charged then OJ will be officially branded as a murderer, which with that the parole board may never release him from prison until his full term is served.

The last documentary I saw helped me understand how the jury could possibly overlook the evidence, maybe this was produced to help counter the doubt that was created.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 9:49 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kitkat a private message Print Post    
I also wondered how Derrick of BB got this job. They should have used a professional forensic analyst, not a street cop and not Henry Lee.

How in the world do they get away with "convicting" Jason for 5-6 hours without being sued? I would think this would be very disruptive to his current life. Burke Ramsey recently sued CBS for similar reasons. Whether he will win is in question, but at least he is fighting back. To use a worn out term - fake news.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 12:23 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Cass_cat a private message Print Post    
Kitkat I'm with you... and Willwillbe... I figured they would come to the "looks like OJ did it" conclusion.

I tuned in and out of this show and couldn't believe they basically said Jason was involved and that his dad covered for him... I can see it, but I can't believe they got away with saying it. I really got peeved when they were talking about the black caps that Jason used to wear, similar to the cap that the killer wore... then after the murders he mysteriously started wearing a gray cap. It seemed to me they were on a slippery slope with everything they said about Jason. I'm going to assume they had legal very closely scrutinize everything.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 2:34 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Willwillbee a private message Print Post    
Cass-cat, I think they WANT Jason to sue for libel which he will IF he is innocent. Otherwise, he will have to prove that it is a lie. That the time card, which was his alibi was real.

Strange, I thought most time clocks had a time AND day stamp

His deposition claims he took the days off after the murder but the timecard showed he worked.

I was shocked they didn't interrogate the owner that verified Jason's claim that he was there. I would assume they tried & s/he refused. It was strange that it wasn't even mentioned that they tried. Maybe s/he feared for their life? They have the busboy saying the kitchen closed at 9pm that night & the other owner claiming the overseeing owner was with him & not at the restaurant.

I didn't understand the whole time card thing, it sounded like the overseeing owner said look at this questionable time card. I felt like the overseeing owner wanted the whole subject brought out but didn't want to be personally involved. Please someone with a better memory clear this up for me, I don't want to watch it again lol.

They have an eye witness who passed a polygraph that Jason was there. That doesn't mean Jason "was" there, just that the eyewitness believes it was him but I would that would be enough to open an investigation & definitely will after a 6 hour documentary will force the LAPD to do so.

I don't believe there is a time limit on accomplices that are there during the murder.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 6:37 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Bbpeach a private message Print Post    
I agreed with Derrick about the time card being for two weeks instead of one. When they first showed it I couldn't see why there would be two Sundays. I think both Derrick and the guy he was working with both believe that Jason wasn't involved. Only the Dear guy seemed determined to prove Jason was involved. I didn't like him and wondered what his motive was. The others think there very well could have been someone else involved, but didn't really think it was Jason. Even the "eyewitness " said that the other person never got out of the Bronco. Any way you look at it, OJ did it whether anyone else was there or not.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 8:28 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Seamonkey a private message Print Post    
Wow when I posted above I hadn't seen this show, still haven't and probably won't ..

But I had NO idea they were going to imply anything about Jason.. just that that was a theory way back when the original case was tried.

I think as years have passed not many people think OJ didn't do it, even those who were on his side in the case or on the jury. But that is done.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 8:55 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Naja a private message Print Post    
They didn't imply it was Jason, the main guy in the investigation flat out says he thinks it was Jason.

I watched an episode and a half and I gave up on it. I thought it was slow an dull.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 10:26 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Dipo a private message Print Post    
So I haven't watched any of this, and probably won't, but I am wondering, who the heck is this Jason person? How is he related?

I find all your comments interesting.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 10:44 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Brenda1966 a private message Print Post    
I had to google it myself he is oj's son frtom prior marriage



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 11:07 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Willwillbee a private message Print Post    
Dipo, Jason is OJ's son. He was on probation at the time for attacking his ex-employer in a fairly vicious manner & threatening to cut him next time.

This is my understanding of what they said about OJ's confession book, IF I did it... OJ claims that someone came by & got him all upset with Nicole's recent antics at a Mexican resort. He claims the 2 of them stormed over to her house & this character brought a knife. He claims to have blacked out over details of the murder scene opening up the possibility that maybe the other person did it.

The fellow who claims Jason did the murders bought Jason's storage locker which ONLY had dark, disturbed diary's and a knife, which he felt was the murder weapon. He felt that OJ couldn't have done it because OJ was arthritic & Ron was a strong young man who would have left some kind of marks on the body of someone who attacked him because of all the defensive wounds on Ron's body. Other than the one small cut, OJ had no signs of being in a battle & he was examined thoroughly & photographed. Jason wasn't even questioned because he had a lawyer & wasn't a suspect.

The time card Jason presented as his alibi had the time (in & out) hand written in, which was suspicious. The owner that vouched for him was not even present that night.

The busboy said Sunday nights were slow & the kitchen closed at 9pm & the chefs were always the first ones out but the time card had hand written in that Jason was there til 10:30pm which was after the murders were committed.

Naja, I had to watch it but I think I nodded off during portions - I can't believe they aired these accusations unless they had more evidence. I think their air tight evidence is the time card, they know it's a lie.

My theory is that the owner (that gave the alibi) felt threatened into covering for Jason at the time but was wanting the info to get out without personally doing it.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 11:17 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Dipo a private message Print Post    



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 11:37 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Panda a private message Print Post    
This definitely did not need to be six episodes long, it was dragged out. Derrick does seem very comfortable on TV, though.



Wednesday, January 18, 2017 - 11:49 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Willwillbee a private message Print Post    
Mr.Dear wrote a book claiming OJ took the blame for his son, Jason, killing Nicole & Ron. The libelous accusation was already out there in print, this was just the made for TV version.

He was the impetus for this project. Being proved correct would give him world wide fame & book sales.

O.J. is Innocent and I Can Prove It
by William C. Dear

Dear compiles more than sixteen years of investigation by his team of forensic experts and presents evidence that O. J. was not the killer. Dear makes the compelling case that it was, O.J.’s eldest son Jason, who committed the grisly murders.

About the Author

William C. Dear has worked all over the world as a private investigator. He began his career as a police officer in Miami, Florida, and opened his own investigation agency in 1961. As a certified instructor in the field of homicide, Dear is a renowned speaker at conventions and professional workshops. Dear has received national and international acclaim on cases that received worldwide news coverage, and is the author of The Dungeon Master, about the disappearance of James Dallas Egbert III.

Disgraced detective Mark Fuhrman won worldwide acclaim for investigating the then-unsolved 1975 murder of Martha Moxley and presented his theory in a book that the murderer was Michael Skakel, nephew of Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Senator Robert Kennedy. Skakel was convicted of Moxley's murder in June 2002.

Imagine what would happen to someone who doesn't have a past solving the "murder of the century".



Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 1:01 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Bbpeach a private message Print Post    
I think the 10:30 out time was plausible, since the Sunday that was punched was for 10:20pm. I was suspicious about the people that Dear brought in (the busboy, the "eyewitness") because he seemed like he was soooo sure and wanting to prove it was Jason so bad, that I think he got them (paid?) to say what he wanted them to.



Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 8:05 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Cruzlvr a private message Print Post    
the only person accusing Jason Simpson was Bill Dear. Kris and Derrick were looking at what evidence Bill had and came to their own conclusions, which was they believe Jason had NOTHING to do with the murders. If anything, I think the documentary shows that Bill Dear, for some reason has the hots to show that Jason was involved and that Derrick and Kris came to the conclusion that Bill was wrong. I kind of wondered what Bill's motive was in trying to prove Jason did it. He has spent the last 20 years collecting evidence trying to make it fit that it was Jason. Apparently there are a lot of people that agree with Bill. It seems to me that Bill wants Jason to be guilty and he is trying to make the evidence fit what he believes, instead of seeing where the evidence leads.

The thing I found most interesting was the conclusion Derrick came to on the blood splatters in the Bronco. I found their reasoning plausible.

I thought that Mike character or what his name was that was the PI that claimed to have seen OJ and Jason that night was a complete nut job.



Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 1:03 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Bbpeach a private message Print Post    
Agree completely Cruzlvr.



Thursday, January 19, 2017 - 8:06 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Willwillbee a private message Print Post    
IF Jason was in the vehicle, he is still an accessory to murder - even if he never got out of the vehicle. I thought they proved that was quite possible.

Jason, can't be an accessory, unless they prove OJ did it. OJ can't be charged again, but Jason can.

Dear's parting words on the documentary was that he was pushing for a grand jury investigation. Which would have full authority to completely check out Jason's alibi.

I felt it was appalling to make such accusations without showing compelling proof, but as I said before, I think they actually have it, otherwise they would be open to a serious libel case.

The book was published in 2012, so this accusation has been public for 4 years.



Friday, January 20, 2017 - 2:27 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Willwillbee a private message Print Post    
I had questions but DIDN'T want to rewatch 6 hours, so did a little research - luckily Wm.Dear did some short radio interviews that were also on Youtube.

Wm. Dear claims that he has a copy of the time card that Jason clocked out of the restaurant 1hr 5min earlier but then came back & replaced THAT time card with a hand written one changing the hours - which seemed very suspicious.

I read that Jason had changed his story on when he left when he was under deposition in the second trial saying he had left early that night.

Nicole had given the same pair of gloves to Jason & OJ as were found at the murder scene.

Jason had a rage disorder & checked into a psych hospital 2 wks prior to the murders & had been in & out of psych wards.

witness 10:15 claims he saw Jason & OJ - Dear theorizes that this was second trip for Jason & first trip for OJ

Dear claims that the foam seats had been cut out of Jason's Jeep (possibly to remove blood evidence).

My problem with his theory is that IF the watch broke & stopped at 9:59 - let's say that was his final act before he left the scene. Jason would have then had to go to OJ's say what he did & then the 2 of them would go to the scene by 10:15. OJ left his Bruno Magli foot prints, checked Nicole & then left.

That would have only left 15 min. for Jason to go & get OJ. Jason would have had to change in that time also to not get blood all over the Bronco. I guess he called OJ & told him & maybe they met somewhere.

The book, appears to be a republishing of the author's original 2000 publication, O. J. is Guilty, But Not of Murder

From the reviews, most of the people reading the books felt the evidence was compelling & changed their view.

The more I hear, it sure makes me wonder. I think the most compelling is OJ not having any marks on him other than the small cut. They said Ron's keys were covered in blood & may have been used as his defensive weapon, but were apparently never tested but were returned to the car's owner still sealed in the evidence bag.

Add Your Message Here
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Register Now
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message