Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Year So Far STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Shop Book House Cleaning _fof _fof _fof  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis Shop Now toystl17_gno
Customer Review

3 of 6 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE THE ODDS ARE OF THESE TWO THINGS OCCURRING IN THE VERY SAME MURDER CASE?, April 7, 2010
This review is from: O.J.Simpson~Time Magazine Special Report: O.J. Simpson Not Guilty! (Kitchen)
Former football star O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994. The evidence couldn't be any clearer and more definitive. O.J. Simpson is guilty of those two murders.

The lies that Simpson told to the police during his 32-minute interview with Detectives Tom Lange and Phil Vannatter the day after the murders, plus the obvious lie he told to limo driver Allan Park on the night of the killings ("I overslept; I just got out of the shower; I'll be down in a minute") are enough, all by themselves, to convince any sensible and reasonable person of Simpson's guilt. And that's not even including the fact that Simpson's own blood was found at the scene of the crime and the blood of the two murder victims was found inside his house and car.

But I want to talk about something else here. I want everyone who currently believes that O.J. Simpson is innocent of committing these murders to ask themselves if the following scenario that I'm going to be talking about could possibly be true. Is the following scenario really a believable and reasonable scenario?

Incredibly, Simpson's team of high-priced defense lawyers did, indeed, want the jury at O.J.'s 1995 criminal trial to think that the following set of circumstances WAS reasonable and WAS believable and WAS the absolute truth. And those defense attorneys, amazingly, actually succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of each of those twelve jurors, thereby causing those jurors to allow a double-murderer to walk out of a Los Angeles courtroom a free man.

In order to believe (for even one second) that the defense team's theories about O.J. Simpson's innocence were true, those defense lawyers (including the likes of Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck) had to get the jury to swallow the fantastic and outrageous notion that the following two things occurred, IN TANDEM, in this murder case:

1.) According to the defense lawyers, Orenthal James Simpson was framed for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman by various members of the Los Angeles Police Department, most notably Detective Mark Fuhrman, who was accused by the defense of planting a bloody glove on Simpson's property a few hours after the murders were committed.

And, incredibly, defense attorneys Cochran and Scheck wanted the jury to believe that not only did Fuhrman have a desire to frame Mr. Simpson, but that several other members of the Los Angeles Police Department ALSO wanted to take part in the so-called "frame-up" of O.J. Simpson too.

The silly defense team really had no choice but to put forth the allegation that other LAPD members wanted to join forces with Fuhrman and frame Simpson, because the evidence is clear that Mark Fuhrman was taken off of the case on June 13th, 1994, and would have had no opportunity at all to "plant" any blood at Simpson's Rockingham estate the day after the murders.

So, the defense attorneys leave the "planting" of the blood and other evidence (such as the socks in Simpson's bedroom) up to other LAPD officers, such as Detective Philip Vannatter, who, along with Fuhrman, Johnnie Cochran called the "evil twins of deception".

2.) Massive amounts of physical evidence (which is evidence that all points toward the guilt of the defendant, O.J. Simpson) was contaminated at the Los Angeles Crime Laboratory, which is a lab that the defense conveniently referred to at the trial as a "cesspool of contamination".

This contaminated evidence included ALL FIVE of the blood drops that were deposited at the crime scene by the murderer. (And ALL FIVE blood drops were determined to be the blood of O.J. Simpson via DNA testing.)

And as a result of this sloppy handling of the blood evidence by the LAPD criminalists, the defense contended that ALL FIVE of the crime-scene blood drops (which, according to the defense team, actually was the blood of the real killer, who was not O.J. Simpson) were magically turned into the blood of Orenthal J. Simpson.

ALL FIVE blood drops were, amazingly, transferred from the "real killer's" DNA into ONLY O.J. Simpson's DNA. And this "cross contamination" occurred merely as a result of a criminalist getting a very small amount of blood from Simpson's sample test tube onto his gloves.

And, per the loopy defense team, this "cross contamination" occurred even though the five crime-scene blood drops were many yards away, on the other side of the room, wrapped in multiple layers of paper and other packaging.

And this "cross contamination" supposedly occurred even though the criminalist in question testified that he immediately changed both of his gloves after Simpson's blood had stained his gloves.

And keep in mind that this "contamination" that was alleged by the defense is INNOCENT contamination. What I mean by that is this: According to Simpson's lawyers, the contamination was the result of mere sloppiness and incompetence on the part of the criminalists at the LAPD crime lab. It wasn't, therefore, a result of any plotting and/or scheming by anyone at the LAPD who might have been attempting to frame or set up O.J. Simpson as the murderer.

Therefore, what we and the jury at the 1995 trial are left to conclude is this (according to Simpson's repulsive defense team of evidence-manglers):

Amazingly and unbelievably, if the defense is 100% correct about everything they told the jury back in 1995, we have no choice but to believe that both the #1 and #2 items listed above are, miraculously, things that CO-EXISTED IN TANDEM AND IN PERFECT UNISON WITH ONE ANOTHER in order to make it look like an innocent man named O.J. Simpson had really committed two murders in June of 1994.

Is there a reasonable and rational person on this planet who could possibly believe that #1 and #2 above are things that BOTH existed in the O.J. Simpson murder case?

Are we really supposed to take seriously the defense theory that includes the INNOCENT and NON-DEVIOUS occurrence of massive amounts of contaminated blood evidence (which all turns into O.J.'s DNA, as if it were done by way of a genie's magical powers) IN CONJUNCTION WITH the additional absurd theory, involving a totally SEPARATE and DIFFERENT group of people, that has multiple police officers engaging in a DEVIOUS and NON-INNOCENT act of attempting to frame O.J. Simpson for two murders?

In other words, wasn't it extremely lucky for Mark Fuhrman, Phil Vannatter, and the rest of the sinister LAPD officers who were framing O.J. Simpson to have such sloppy people working in the L.A. crime lab when the Simpson blood evidence was being handled at that facility?

I wonder what the odds are of just ONE of the above two extraordinary allegations being true (let alone BOTH of them being true in the O.J. Simpson murder case, and in perfect tandem and "O.J. DID IT" harmony with each other)?

Well, I guess almost anything is "possible". I suppose it's possible that hundred-dollar bills will fall from the sky into my back yard tomorrow afternoon. And I suppose it's also possible that the planet Venus will suddenly crash into the Earth tomorrow too. But are either of those things "reasonable" things to believe (especially on the same day)?

It couldn't be more obvious that the reason Simpson's defense lawyers resorted to ridiculous theories like #1 and #2 above is because it is the ONLY kind of defense they could come up with. And that's because their client--O.J. Simpson--was guilty of the two murders he was charged with committing. And the evidence proves he was guilty.

Vincent Bugliosi, the author of the 1996 best-seller "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder", possibly said it best when he said:

"When your blood is found at the murder scene, that's the end of the ballgame! There's nothing more to say!"

David Von Pein
April 2010
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the guidelines and FAQs here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 16, 2011, 12:48:47 PM PDT
Patricia says:
Dear David:

As you may or may not know, OJ Simpson is presently IN JAIL! Not, unfortunately, for the murders he obviously committed, but because he tried to steal his own memorabilia from a museum. (probably in order to sell it). I don't know where he is in prison -- probably not the maximum-security type in which he would be for murder -- but he IS in prison, and that's the main thing! This time, the punishment fits the crime....well, almost!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2011, 9:03:42 AM PDT
Obvious says:
That's great. What about the poster?

You know, the poster you are "reviewing"?

"O.J. Simpson / TIME Cover: October 16, 1995, Art Poster by TIME Magazine (Kitchen)"

Posted on Oct 30, 2012, 2:25:51 PM PDT
Garry Puffer says:
David,
Absolutely great essay, and I am being quite sincere. I agree with everything you say regarding the guilt of OJ and the devious machinations used by his team of high-priced scumbucket attorneys.

What I find odd is that everything you say here has a parallel in the JFK case, but in that case you absolutely refuse to acknowledge what in this case you argue is manifestly obvious. Planted evidence, lost evidence, twisted testimony, etc. are clear in both cases, but clear to you in only one. I won't ask why, because I think I already know.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 30, 2012, 3:06:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 30, 2012, 3:24:13 PM PDT
Thank you, Garry. (And I'm sincere too.) :-)

But I think you're a little confused in your last remarks above. I'm not arguing anything different in either case (O.J. or JFK). I'm arguing the exact same things in both cases:

1.) A guilty defendant (Simpson and Oswald).
2.) No evidence was planted at all (in either case).
3.) Neither defendant was being "framed" by anyone.

And I certainly do NOT think that "planted evidence" and "lost evidence" and "twisted testimony" are "clear" in both the JFK and O.J. cases. Just the opposite. I think that those things are far from being "clear" in both cases. There are ALLEGATIONS of planted evidence, etc., but I think it IS clear (in both cases) that those allegations are the vivid examples of a defense team (and, in the JFK case, the conspiracy theorists and conspiracy authors) who have NOTHING ELSE TO ARGUE in order to try and claim their client/defendant is innocent.

It's only when you have NOTHING else to bring forth (particularly when it comes to physical evidence) do you resort to the desperate tactics of arguing to the jury that virtually EVERYTHING has been "planted" to frame your client.

I can just as easily reverse this argument on you, Garry, and suggest that you can easily see the absurdity of the frame-up and "planted evidence" theories regarding the O.J. Simpson case (at least you gave that impression in your last post), but for some reason you can't see that those exact same FALSE ARGUMENTS ("framing a patsy" and "planted evidence" all over the place) exist in the JFK case too. Therefore, why do you believe they ARE false allegations in the O.J. case, but you refuse to believe that the "frame the patsy" theory or the "planted evidence" theory are equally as impossible and ludicrous in the JFK case?*

* And in the JFK example, not only is the allegation of "Oswald is an innocent patsy" totally defeated by Oswald's OWN ACTIONS and lies, but the notion of the "patsy" theory is defeated via ordinary common sense as well (even from a CTer's POV) -- because what juror in his right mind is going to actually believe a theory that has multiple assassins firing at JFK from DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS within the framework of a plot that was supposed to be designed to incriminate JUST Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository?

That last argument I just made, all by itself and with nothing else to go with it, destroys the "Oswald Was An Innocent Patsy" theory. It certainly defeats that theory from any kind of sensible and logical POV.

BTW, I've talked about the amazing "O.J./JFK Similarities" before. Check out the two webpages below:

http://amazon.com/review/RZ7D411QMC7ON

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/06/jfk-and-oj-simpson-similarities.html
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Location: Mooresville, Indiana; USA

Top Reviewer Ranking: 589,727