Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Valentino dead wrong about O.J.
-
I can't believe he's actually claiming that O.J. is innocent, i remember watching a lot of that trial and i thought the evidence of O.J. being guilty was overwhelming, besides who else would want to kill his wife and Goldman? The trial was lost as soon as the jury was picked, in fact even a public defender would have won the case for Simpson because there was zero chance that that particular jury was going to convict him.
-
YouTube: "OJ Guilty but not of murder". A lot of compelling evidence to show he was framed. They just plain never looked at anyone else.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=63033FDB3B715F46
Valentino is probably the only one to say these things from the beginning and I had a hard time accepting his evidence but I now believe he's right. Have a look, you might just change your mind.
Remember, the media aren't there to give you truth, they only want to distract you from what is really going on. The real trial of the century was going on in Memphis and the government found Lloyd Jowers guilty and the US Government complicit in the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King. This trial went on all through the OJ circus and we heard not one word. It's always in their best interest to skew the outcome in the public eye to keep up the deception
-
I watched the Bill Dear documentary in its entirety. It suffers from being a bit of an infomercial, and also because it leaves a lot of questions unasked that might have superficially weakened his case, like: was the knife found in the box of OJ's son's belongings ever tested for Nicole Brown's or Ron Goldman's DNA? (Probably the answer was: yes, it was tested with a negative result; and so the fact was left out.)
Some of the evidence, while convincing, is really just circumstantial. The "Year of the Knife" entry in the notebook, for example.
One thing I can corroborate personally about a piece of his evidence is as follows: I worked for a while as a dishwasher, and very briefly as a so-called sous-chef, at an expensive upscale restaurant in the Hamptons (NY state). For those who don't know, the Hamptons is where all the NY billionaires quietly hide away when they're not in the city. As result, there are a number of restaurants there to service them of the same type as those in LA.
I learned that chefs in such restaurants in general are prima donnas, and they're treated like such. The chefs don't work set hours like the rest of us wage slaves. They are like movies stars who when their scene is done get the hell out of there. When the last dish is handed to the server, they are on their way out the door. This is Standard Operating Procedure, so to speak. It is not as most people might expect: chefs, servers, everyone else waiting till the restaurant closes its doors to go home. (You might think the restaurant runs a risk...if new diners come in, who remains to make a meal? The answer is: they just run the risk. The manager for the night has a strong sense of when the last table has come in, and sometimes people are just turned away if they come too late.)
So, if Jason Simpson was a chef that night and the last dish was carried out of the kitchen at around 9:30, or whenever that earlier time was, then it is very likely he would have simply left the restaurant well before the restaurant itself closed. This is standard practice -- I was given to believe from when I worked -- for all upscale restaurants.
Like Len's reaction, the documentary was a real eye-opener for me. I always assumed OJ was guilty. As a result, I put Valentino's views in the same category as the Moon Hoax. But certainly when there's the falsification of evidence, the jury was right to acquit whether he did it or not. And without knowing more, it seems to me now that there's more evidence (including motive) that the son did it than OJ doing it himself.
