very interesting documentary

[Jack White]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=79...46122795&hl

...which proves what I have been saying for many years.

Jack

[Len Colby]

So you’re trying to take credit for coming up with that theory? When did you first propose it? The doco was based on a book published in 2000. The author is from Dallas, I guess you came up with this independently and this a coincidence.

http://www.amazon.com/O-J-Guilty-But-Not-M...r/dp/0970205805

This reminds me of the WTC 6 junk you copped from Bollyn

[Jack White]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=79...46122795&hl

...which proves what I have been saying for many years.***

Jack

***I watched the entire event and trial on TV. I was suspicious of Jason from the beginning

because of his actions at the conclusion of the slow speed chase of OJ.

Having seen the entire trial on Court TV and CNN, I came to the same conclusion as the

jury. OJ could NOT have done the murders. From the evidence presented, I deduced that

Jason was the only suspect and that his motive was jealousy. I surmised that OJ was covering

up for Jason.

A year after the verdict, (1995) attorney Alan Dershowitz of the defense team was in Fort Worth

for a speaking engagement. At a reception for him later, I told him my hunch that Jason

did the murders. He was taken by surprise. He replied, "because of attorney-client privilege,

I cannot discuss that. But I CAN SAY that he was the ONLY SUSPECT WITHOUT AN ALIBI."

That, coming from an insider, was ALMOST an admission regarding Jason's culpability.

Since 1995, I have expressed my opinion that Jason did the crime and OJ covered for him.

Since 1995 I have posted this on several forums, including this one. My postings may be archived.

Private eye Dear's book was published MUCH later than I concluded that Jason was the murderer.

I even wrote a letter to the LAPD expressing my opinion, and never heard from them.

Jack

[Terry Mauro]

Jack,

OJ Simpson pleaded "not guilty" and then spent every pennie he had defending himself. Had he wanted to protect his son he would have had to have turn himself in and claimed responsibility for the two murders. He did not do this. OJ Simpsonhas maintained his innocence from the very begining.

Gaining an acquital would do nothing to protect his son. The whole premise just doesnt make any sense.

The case is "still open".

Edited August 16, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Jack White]

Jack,

OJ Simpson pleaded "not guilty" and then spent every pennie he had defending himself. Had he wanted to protect his son he would have had to have turn himself in and claimed responsibility for the two murders. He did not do this. OJ Simpsonhas maintained his innocence from the very begining.

Gaining an acquital would do nothing to protect his son. The whole premise just doesnt make any sense.

The case is "still open".

Did you watch the documentary? It makes sense.

Jack

[William Kelly]

Jack,

OJ Simpson pleaded "not guilty" and then spent every pennie he had defending himself. Had he wanted to protect his son he would have had to have turn himself in and claimed responsibility for the two murders. He did not do this. OJ Simpsonhas maintained his innocence from the very begining.

Gaining an acquital would do nothing to protect his son. The whole premise just doesnt make any sense.

The case is "still open".

Did you watch the documentary? It makes sense.

Jack

Jack, I watched the whole thing and found it very persuasive.

Bill Dear is quite a character. And he uses Dr. Lee and Henry Wade's son as consultants.

He should now tackle the Tippit murder, doing the same thing, with the same approach.

And Terry, the LAPD position on the case is that OJ is the guilty party and the case is closed.

John Geraghty could get a few ideas from watching it too.

BK

[Terry Mauro]

Jack,

OJ Simpson pleaded "not guilty" and then spent every pennie he had defending himself. Had he wanted to protect his son he would have had to have turn himself in and claimed responsibility for the two murders. He did not do this. OJ Simpsonhas maintained his innocence from the very begining.

Gaining an acquital would do nothing to protect his son. The whole premise just doesnt make any sense.

The case is "still open".

Did you watch the documentary? It makes sense.

Jack

Jack, I watched the whole thing and found it very persuasive.

Bill Dear is quite a character. And he uses Dr. Lee and Henry Wade's son as consultants.

He should now tackle the Tippit murder, doing the same thing, with the same approach.

And Terry, the LAPD position on the case is that OJ is the guilty party and the case is closed.

John Geraghty could get a few ideas from watching it too.

BK

OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, so therefore another party could be charged with the crime. That doesnt mean the LAPD is actively working the case, only that another party could be charged with the murder.

Therefore what OJ Simpson did, in no way prevents his son Jason from being charged with the murders. Therefore the entire premise "OJ Simpson was protecting his son" makes no sense at all.

Had OJ Simpson wanted to protect his son Jason, then he would have confessed to the murders and worked out some plea arrangement. He would not have spent every last dime defending himself! There in lies the flaw with this theory.

And the LAPD and DA charged OJ Simpson with murder, he did not charge himself with murder. So how in the world could he have been protecting his son Jason? And from the very begining OJ Simpson professed his innocence.

[Len Colby]

"Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles" I completely agree with Terry. I guess if Jack and Craig can agree on something (Obama might not have been born in the US) then anything is possible.

[Jack White]

Jack,

OJ Simpson pleaded "not guilty" and then spent every pennie he had defending himself. Had he wanted to protect his son he would have had to have turn himself in and claimed responsibility for the two murders. He did not do this. OJ Simpsonhas maintained his innocence from the very begining.

Gaining an acquital would do nothing to protect his son. The whole premise just doesnt make any sense.

The case is "still open".

Did you watch the documentary? It makes sense.

Jack

Jack, I watched the whole thing and found it very persuasive.

Bill Dear is quite a character. And he uses Dr. Lee and Henry Wade's son as consultants.

He should now tackle the Tippit murder, doing the same thing, with the same approach.

And Terry, the LAPD position on the case is that OJ is the guilty party and the case is closed.

John Geraghty could get a few ideas from watching it too.

BK

OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, so therefore another party could be charged with the crime. That doesnt mean the LAPD is actively working the case, only that another party could be charged with the murder.

Therefore what OJ Simpson did, in no way prevents his son Jason from being charged with the murders. Therefore the entire premise "OJ Simpson was protecting his son" makes no sense at all.

Had OJ Simpson wanted to protect his son Jason, then he would have confessed to the murders and worked out some plea arrangement. He would not have spent every last dime defending himself! There in lies the flaw with this theory.

And the LAPD and DA charged OJ Simpson with murder, he did not charge himself with murder. So how in the world could he have been protecting his son Jason? And from the very begining OJ Simpson professed his innocence.

Terry, please watch the documentary. You clearly have not.

Jack

[Terry Mauro]

Jack,

OJ Simpson pleaded "not guilty" and then spent every pennie he had defending himself. Had he wanted to protect his son he would have had to have turn himself in and claimed responsibility for the two murders. He did not do this. OJ Simpsonhas maintained his innocence from the very begining.

Gaining an acquital would do nothing to protect his son. The whole premise just doesnt make any sense.

The case is "still open".

Did you watch the documentary? It makes sense.

Jack

Jack, I watched the whole thing and found it very persuasive.

Bill Dear is quite a character. And he uses Dr. Lee and Henry Wade's son as consultants.

He should now tackle the Tippit murder, doing the same thing, with the same approach.

And Terry, the LAPD position on the case is that OJ is the guilty party and the case is closed.

John Geraghty could get a few ideas from watching it too.

BK

OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, so therefore another party could be charged with the crime. That doesnt mean the LAPD is actively working the case, only that another party could be charged with the murder.

Therefore what OJ Simpson did, in no way prevents his son Jason from being charged with the murders. Therefore the entire premise "OJ Simpson was protecting his son" makes no sense at all.

Had OJ Simpson wanted to protect his son Jason, then he would have confessed to the murders and worked out some plea arrangement. He would not have spent every last dime defending himself! There in lies the flaw with this theory.

And the LAPD and DA charged OJ Simpson with murder, he did not charge himself with murder. So how in the world could he have been protecting his son Jason? And from the very begining OJ Simpson professed his innocence.

Terry, please watch the documentary. You clearly have not.

Jack

Jack,

I don't doubt the innocence of OJ Simpson. I simply don't believe he was trying to take the rap to protect his son. OJ Simpson did not make the murder charge against himself and furthermore he maintained his innocence from the very start (prior to being charged). To me that is no way to act if your motive is to cover up for the real killer.

Furthermore in my view there had to have been more than a single killer to commit the crime at Bundy. There is no way a single person could have committed those murders.

Hollywood has a long history of these types of satanic killings. The Manson case in 1969, the Cotton Club Murders in 1983 and on and on.

The TV trial was just one big brainwashing exercise in my opinion. Watch the public reaction to the verdict and you'll see what I mean. Millions of people developed a personal attachment to the outcome. This attachment came as a result of the daily bombardment of media attention.

The entire courtroom drama was a farce.

[Jack White]

Terry, please watch the video.

Jack