This same guy claims he killed Jon Benet Ramsey too....

No way. OJ was frying until Darden pulled the glove trick.

This would be a whole lot more difficult to believe if Mark Fuhrman hadn't invoked his 5th Amendment rights when asked during the trial if he had planted evidence at Simpson's house.

FAX

Was DNA around during this trial, or was that before it became accepted?


With DNA evidence now, is it possible to murder someone and get away with it? I guess it is, because you hear about murders a lot where no one is caught, but how does that happen? Is it because they don't know the victim and don't do much with them (e.g., stab and walk or shoot from a distance)? Or is it because they know the victim and their DNA is all over the place (e.g., killing a spouse or acquaintance)?

Let's say you want to kill somebody. What's the scenario where you're most likely to get away with it?

1. Kill someone you know in their house or your house and make up a story about it.

2. Kill a complete stranger that you pick at random, in some unfamiliar location.

I'll certify that I'm not planning anything, but it makes me curious.

Yes, DNA testing was available at the time, but the LA police had botched just about everything they could, including the chain of custody.

As someone who listened to this trial every single day on the radio, listened to the local media perspective every day over lunch, watched CNN every night, visited the crime scene, visited the Rockingham home (since demolished), drove the route from Rockingham to Bundy, etc., I have no doubt that this person is lying.

Mark Fuhrman was definitely a racist and definitely planted evidence. The sad part is that he didn't need to plant evidence because O.J. clearly killed both people. If it hadn't been for the large gash on OJ's knuckle, he probably wouldn't have appeared guilty to everyone but the jury.

This was a crime of passion. This wasn't some passer by or hired killer. Nicole Simpson was essentially beheaded. The murderer (O.J.) nearly cut her entire head off of her body. I heard that from an attorney before the trial, which is why OJ's lawyer at the time, Burt Fields, recused himself from the case immediately.

Totally possible. In fact, it apparently happens all the time.

I've watched several episodes of some cable television program I ran across (48 hours or something like that) about homicide detectives. In fact, I posted something about it awhile back.

Anyhow, the program is about how real-life homicide detectives have about 48 hours to get a lead or the odds of solving the murder decrease dramatically. Over and over again, they are only able to solve the crime because they either have an eye witness or video tape or photography taken at the time. Otherwise, people get away with murder constantly.

It seems as though you have to A) Make sure there are no witnesses - human or otherwise, B) Get rid of the murder weapon, C) Have a reasonable alibi, and D) Have an attorney present during questioning. And, obviously, it's a good idea not to leave any DNA evidence behind.

But, if you do those things and refuse to confess, the likelihood of getting away with murder is actually pretty good ... or so it appears. The detectives on this show are good at berating perps to the point that they confess. Other than that, it's not like CSI ... at all.

FAX

I agree with this. I've seen the crime scene photos - her throat was slit all the way back to her spine. That's not somebody getting paid - that's somebody sending a personal ****-you-gram.

Hmm. Interesting. I think maybe the crime shows make me think that it's all space-age now and that it's hard to get away without leaving some evidence that can be traced and it sounds like that's not the case.

I bet if it was a really, really high-profile murder like a senator or celebrity getting killed (bigger than Nicole Brown), a big city or the FBI might be able to do the space-age stuff, but if a normal sixpack person gets murdered they don't have the budget or staff to do it.

And while I'm thinking about it, is "space-age" still a reasonable adjective to describe something that's ultra-modern? The apex of the space age was over 40 years ago. In my mind it still sounds cutting edge, but is it? Should I really be saying "Curiosity Age" or "Drone Age" or "Wristborne GPS Age"?

ROFL. That STILL makes him guilty.

kcuf J.O.

I call it the FAX Age, but that's just me.

FAX

Wasn't OJ found not guilty in criminal court? Next.