DATAͻ   CIS# 72774,676  e.v.1995 All rights perturbed
  ͻ     3/16/95
DK޲
  ͼ  
KING


Why O.J. did it.


Possibility #1:
O.J. Simpson committed the crime, no evidence was planted.

Possibility #2:
O.J. Simpson committed the crime, evidence was planted.

Possibility #3:
O.J. Simpson did not commit the crime, evidence was planted.

        A. Evidence planted was done so by the perpetrator(s).
        B. Evidence planted was not done so by the perpetrator(s).
        C. Evidence planted was done so only partially by the perpetrator(s).
        

Possibility #1:
O.J. Simpson committed the crime, no evidence was planted


Shortly after 10:00 pm, July 13, 1994, O.J. drove his Bronco over to
Nicole Brown Simpson's residence and parked.  He donned a ski mask and
leather gloves, and possibly some type of protective clothing, got out
of his car and rang the bell on the gate.  Nicole, thinking that it was
Ron Goldman delivering her glasses, answered the bell.  O.J. killed her
and was in the process of removing his bloody clothing (he had already
removed the ski mask and one of the gloves) when he was surprised by Ron
Goldman.  They struggled but O.J. subsequently killed him.  In the process,
O.J. cut himself on the hand.  O.J., now in a panic because he had not
anticipated having to do this second murder, now hurries home, trying
to get there before the limo driver arrives.  In his haste, he forgets
that he has dropped the ski mask and one of the leather gloves.  When
he arrives back at his house, he sees the limo driver waiting, so he
parks his Bronco on the street.  He scales the wall behind Kato Kaelin's
room and bangs against the wall, dropping the second bloody glove
inadvertently.  O.J. places the bloody clothing in a duffel bag that
he has earlier secreted on the grounds of his estate.  In his stocking
feet, he heads to the front door.  The limo driver sees "a tall black man"
go through the front door at about a quarter till 11 pm.  O.J. showers,
but doesn't realize that one of the socks he wore has Ron Goldman's blood
on it.  He dresses, takes his bags downstairs and goes out to meet the
limo driver.  He meets Kato outside, who has been talking to the driver,
wondering where O.J. was.  The driver loads the luggage into the trunk,
then Kato sees the duffel bag on the driveway.  O.J. insists that he will
carry this bag with him on the plane.  In Chicago, O.J. is seen walking
in a park near his hotel, but not carrying anything.  The duffel bag has
subsequently disappeared.

Kato testified that he and O.J. drove to McDonald's to eat between 8:30
and 9pm.  When they got back, Kato went to his room.  Kato then came back
out and saw O.J.  They talked briefly and O.J. told him it was OK to use
the jacuzzi.  At around 10:45 pm, Kato heard a loud thud against his back
wall.  He thought it was an earthquake.  He went outside and walked around
the house, where he saw the waiting limo driver.  He went back in, finished
his phone call, then after about fifteen minutes, he went back out where
he met O.J. and pointed out the duffel bag, which O.J. took with him.

The neighbor's housekeeper, Rosa, testified that she saw O.J. and a blond-
haired man leave in a black luxury sedan at about the time Kato testified
he and O.J. went to get dinner at McDonald's.  Later, sometime between 9:30
and 10pm, the housekeeper hears footsteps (hard-soled shoes) outside on
the Simpson estate.  She is afraid, thinking perhaps a prowler is there.
However, not long after that she hears O.J.'s voice clearly talking to
another man.  This coincides with Kato's testimony that he and O.J. talked
about the jacuzzi sometime between 9:30 and 10pm.  Shortly after 10pm,
the housekeeper puts on water for tea and takes the dog out for a walk.
She sees the Bronco parked by the curb, but she is unsure as to the time
(about the latest she claims seeing it is around 10:20pm).

At 10:30 pm, the limo driver arrives, but there is no Bronco parked by
the curb.  He rings at the gate several times, but there is no answer.
He calls his boss, rings again, sees the "tall black man" going into the
front door.  O.J. finally answers the buzzer, says he's been asleep and
will be down shortly.  Kato comes out, then O.J.  He loads the bags and
takes O.J. to the airport.

The strength of the prosecution's case includes O.J.'s history of spousal
abuse (including a threat to kill Nicole), physical evidence found at both
Nicole's estate and O.J.'s, and chemical and DNA evidence pointing to O.J.'s
committing the crime.

The flaw in the prosecution's case include Detective Furman's history of
racism, and his previous involvement with O.J. when he responded to a
domestic violence call at O.J.'s estate in 1986.


Possibility #2:
O.J. Simpson committed the crime, evidence was planted

The scenario would be basically the same, except that Detective Furman
found the second bloody glove at the crime scene, took it with him to
the O.J. estate, placed blood both outside and INSIDE the Bronco, and
placed the glove behind the house based on what Kato told him about
the noise.

The flaws in this theory are, first, how did the blood get inside the
Bronco?  Furman, or a complicit associate, would've had to have done
this later, after the bronco was seized by the police.  Although difficult,
this would not be absolutely impossible to do.  However, the likelihood
that this planted evidence would not have been found out is slim.  There
are no witnesses to Furman being anywhere near the Bronco after it was
impounded.  If the planting of the blood inside the Bronco was done while
the car was at O.J.'s house, Furman would have been taking an incredible
risk of being discovered, as it was already pointed out that there was
blood on the outside of the car.  If Furman planted the blood evidence
on the Bronco BEFORE the detective team went over to O.J.'s house, then
he would have had to leave the crime scene sometime earlier without being
seen.  We would also have to assume that the Bronco was unlocked, or else
Furman "broke into" the Bronco on the street, unseen and without leaving
any evidence that the Bronco had been broken into.

Supposing also that Furman planted the glove on this previous secret
visit, how would he have known where to plant it, as no one had talked to
Kato yet?  One would have to assume that the noise Kato heard was Detective
Furman himself, but if that were the case, then most likely Furman would
have to be the killer, because of the time.  But Furman has an alibi for
his whereabouts at that time --he was at home asleep with his wife.

Assuming that the blood inside the Bronco was merely incidental, and not
related to the crime, the possiblity that Furman DID plant the evidence
goes up again.  But what about the bloody sock found in O.J.'s bedroom?
A sock with blood matching Ron Goldman's type.  Furman would have had
to have gotten the sock from the crime scene as well.  What is the likelihood
that O.J. would have left a sock at the crime scene?  And when did Furman
have the opportunity to plant the sock in O.J.'s bedroom?  There is no
evidence, or testimony that Furman had the opportunity to do this.  However,
it is not entirely out of the realm of remote possibility.  But why would
Furman bother to risk planting the sock, when he had already planted the
damning evidence of the bloody glove?  That's a LOT of risk-taking on
Detective Furman's part!

Overall, if you admit the possibility that O.J. committed the crime, then
the likelihood that ANY evidence was planted is very small.  Why would
Furman take the risk if he knew (or at least suspected) that O.J. did
the crime?  Why take such a risk?  There was enough evidence at the
crime scene alone to indict O.J., so why try to "put another nail in the
coffin" if it was already sealed?  Of course, you could say that Furman
didn't KNOW that O.J. committed the crime, and just "wanted to get him".
But then the risk is even greater, because if the evidence at the crime
scene pointed AWAY from O.J. doing it, the evidence at his house would
ABSOLUTELY be planted evidence.  And Furman would stand out as the suspect
who planted it.  Talk about risk-taking!


Possibility #3:
O.J. Simpson did not commit the crime, evidence was planted


A. Evidence planted was done so by the perpetrator(s)

The person (or persons) who committed the crime would have to be
intimately familiar with O.J.'s comings and goings, particularly on the
night of the murders.  The murderer (or murderers) may have stolen O.J.'s
stocking cap, and perhaps a sock or socks, at some earlier date.  They
would have to know O.J.'s shoe size and the type of tennis shoe O.J.
typically wore, as well as the type of knife O.J. liked.  None of the
planted evidence necessarily had to be O.J.'s.  However, they would have
had to have obtained samples of O.J.'s hair and blood, which is more
difficult to do, but not entirely impossible.

The defense has alluded to a possible "drug connection", possibly involving
Nicole's friend, Faye Resnick.  But if Faye Resnick had "stiffed" some drug
dealer(s), why would the drug dealer(s) concoct such an elaborate scheme to
frame O.J.?  Wouldn't they have simply "offed" Faye Resnick, as a sign to
anyone else who should think to "stiff" them in the future?  Isn't this
what ruthless drug dealers usually do?  Same thing with Nicole.  If she had
"stiffed" some drug dealer(s), why would they frame O.J.?  The only way this
scenario could be true would be if O.J. was the one who "stiffed" some drug
dealer(s), and they were "sending him a message".  But why frame him?
They'd never get their money that way!  Assuming they didn't want their
money, that they simply wanted to "get" O.J.  Why not just kill him?  Why
concoct an elaborate (and risky) scheme to frame him?  The risk would be far
greater than a simple "hit" made to look like a robbery.  Why would any
drug dealer(s) take such a risk?  Finally, if the drug dealer(s) wanted to
kill Nicole as a "message" and THEN ask O.J. for the money he owed them,
then wouldn't blackmail be a part of O.J.'s defense?  This scenario just
makes no sense.

You also have the problem of the TIMING.  It would have to be almost
perfect.  The perpetrator(s) would have to know EXACTLY when O.J. was
home and had no alibi.  You'd almost have to have one person committing
the crime while another kept O.J.'s estate under surveillance, radioing
the "go ahead" at just the right moment.  And, if the perpetrators had
such a sophisticated "intelligence" operation going, why didn't they
anticipate Ron Goldman's sudden intrusion?  Did they plan to kill him
too?  Not likely.  And if Ron Goldman was somehow involved and they DID
plan to kill him, then the timing issue is even more crucial.  What is
the likelihood that such a perfect opportunity to kill BOTH victims
AND frame O.J. would occur?  The killer(s) would have to had been
waiting for this opportunity for quite some time.  Did anyone ever see
any strange cars or people hanging around Nicole's, Ron's and O.J.'s
neighborhood?  There is no evidence for this.

Another problem is the whereabouts of the Bronco.  The limo driver
testified that the Bronco was not there when he arrived at O.J.'s
estate.  Who was driving the Bronco if O.J. wasn't?  If you assume
that the killer(s) stole the Bronco to commit the crime, then you
have the possibility that they'd be seen somewhere, as well as the
possibility that O.J. might happen to want to use the car and discover
it stolen.  Quite a risk just to frame the guy!

If you suppose that the killer(s) just got lucky that O.J. was at home
but suddenly decided to take the Bronco out (say to the store for some
last minute trip item), then why wouldn't O.J. have said, innocently
enough, that he had taken the Bronco to the store?  AND, he would have
had WITNESSES as to his whereabouts at the time the crime was committed.

Assuming the worst, that the perpetrator(s) stole O.J.'s Bronco, committed
the murders, returned to O.J.'s house and planted the bloody glove AND
the bloody sock, then you have the REALLY THORNY problem of how they got
the bloody sock into O.J.'s bedroom while he was, supposedly, asleep!
Why take such a risk?  Isn't the bloody glove enough?

If you assume that the killer(s) succeeded at doing all of the above,
(and even if you assume that the bloody sock and the blood inside the Bronco
are incidental) you still have the problem of MOTIVE and ASSOCIATION with
the victims and the "framee".  If the perpetrator(s) simply hated O.J. for
some such reason, what could that reason be?  He would've had to have REALLY
pissed somebody off at some time or another.  Where's the evidence that
ANYONE hated him that much?

Even if the murderer(s) simply HATED O.J., it would be pretty difficult
to engineer all of the circumstances of that night to make it come out
so "neat and tidy".  If the killer(s) had planned the crime in advance,
why wouldn't they have picked a night when O.J. DIDN'T have to go out
of town?  A night that DIDN'T include Nicole's family activities.
A night when O.J DIDN'T have a guest in his house.


B. Evidence planted was not done so by the perpetrator(s)

How fortuous that Mark Furman came along to plant evidence!  We would have
to believe that Detective Furman stole and secreted evidence BEFORE and
UNKNOWN to the killer(s).  The likelihood of this scenario is nullified
by the fact that Mark Furman has an alibi for his whereabouts at the time
the evidence was discovered at the crime scene.  Furman would have to be
the killer (or complicit with the killer(s)), which negates the postulate.


C. Evidence planted was done so only partially by the perpetrator(s)

Assuming that the killer(s) planted the evidence at the crime scene, you
still have the added aspect of Mark Furman stealing evidence and then
planting it on O.J.'s estate.  How fortuous!  What are the odds that
TWO separate parties, unbeknownst to each other, BOTH decide to frame
O.J.  Now you've got TWO parties that HATED O.J. THAT much.  That's ALOT
of enemies for anybody, let alone O.J., who is almost universally loved
by EVERYBODY!

But let's assume that this last scenario is what happened.  Let's also
assume that the Bronco was not used by the killer(s), and that Detective
Furman planted the bloody glove.  Further, let's assume that the blood
ON and IN the Bronco is not related to the crime, and that the sock found
in O.J.'s bedroom just happened to have blood on it that matched Ron
Goldman's blood type.  You still have the mystery of WHO was driving the
Bronco when the limo driver arrived.  You still have the mystery of the
loud thud Kato heard.  You still have the mystery of the footsteps Rosa
heard before she heard O.J.'s and Kato's voices.

If we assume that O.J. secretly drove over to Nicole's house, discovered
the crime, realized he was being framed, and left, we still have the mystery
of the loud thud Kato heard.  If it was O.J., fearing to be seen by the
limo driver, and then Furman later using this noise as an opportunity to
plant the glove, you still have to explain O.J.'s subsequent behavior, AS
WELL AS the likelihood that he JUST SO HAPPENED to have stumbled upon the
crime scene just after being framed!  And then he gets framed COINCIDENTALLY
AGAIN.  Does this scenario EVER happen outside of the movies?


Summary

Who drove the Bronco?  Who made the loud noise on Kato's wall?  Whose
footsteps did Rosa hear on O.J.'s estate?  Who ELSE could it have been
but O.J.?  He had the means to do the crime.  He had the motive to do
the crime.  He had the opportunity to do the crime, and he has no
substantiated alibi for his whereabouts at the time the crime was
committed.  The circumstantial evidence points ONLY toward O.J. and
NO ONE else.  What is the likelihood of ANY of these other possible
scenarios when compared with the likelihood that O.J. committed the
murders?

Given the fact that MOST murders are committed without any eyewitnesses,
and given the fact that DNA evidence has proven sufficient to PRECLUDE
possible suspects (and even convicted criminals) from committing a crime,
what credence should we give to the defense's utimate claim that "nobody
saw him murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman", when balanced against
the DNA evidence placing O.J. at the scene?

Very few people even knew about O.J.'s abusive behavior toward his ex-wife.
Fewer still who might have even remotely had the means, ability AND
desire to commit two grizzly murders in order to frame him.  Without any
evidence of a "drug vendetta", one must conclude that the list of possible
suspects is very small.  Are we to conclude that Mark Furman killed Nicole
Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and that the entire Los Angeles Police
Department has been duped as to his culpability?  Or are we to conclude
that the entire Los Angeles Police Department was involved in an elaborate
and sophisticated scheme to frame one of the most beloved public figures
in this country?  And this on the heels of the Rodney King fiasco!

Anything's possible.  But what reasonable doubt do we have that even comes
close to offsetting the most likely scenario that O.J. killed Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ron Goldman?  You might argue that O.J. is not likely to kill
anyone ever again, and therefore is not a threat to society.  But O.J. has
not pleaded temporary insanity.  He claims he simply didn't do it.

If someone you loved was brutally murdered and the suspect, in light of all
this evidence, still claimed they were not guilty, at what point would your
"reasonable doubt" transform into "reasonable certainty" that this suspect
committed the crime?  SOMEONE committed murder.  Is there anyone ELSE
who could've REASONABLY committed the crime?


-Dave King

