In light of the Preface to this section, I have no divine knowledge orinsight to share with anyone as to whether or not O.J. Simpson committedthese murders except to say, God gave man intelligence and the ability tothink and reason. Mankind will not be judged on the outcome of the O.J.Simpson trial per se but he will on American's reaction to the verdict resultingin the violation of his own ethics and code of law violating O.J. Simpson'shuman rights and lynching him in the court of "pundits opinion."

I sincerely hope O.J. Simpson didn't commit those murders because, whileI too played football but was never good enough to go pro, I like O.J. andam genuinely impressed with what he has been able to do with his life. Ihate to see anyone commit murder regardless of who the are whether in war,or for political or domestic reasons. However, I really don't care who itis, that killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. I think they shouldbe strung up by their testicles and hung out to dry -- that's assuming itwas a male or males! With that in mind, we all have to realize that noneof us are impervious to Satan's warped and destructive influence not eventhose of the prosecution team who are willing to lie and make the publicbelieve that only they desire and are trusted with the duty of seeing Justiceis done. So tread lightly! You might just be signing your own death warrant!Christ said, As ye judge, so shall. ye be judged.

Below are several questions I would have liked to have asked during thetrial but like the jury, I couldn't raise my hand. I had to wait until itwas all over. However, these questions, were never answered, let alone addressed.Now, I would like to put them out to the general wed community in hopesthat some might read and think about them then e-mail me your take, analysisor opinion on the subject. I try to be open minded but I'm after all, onlyhuman. I get very upset when people deliberately twist, misconstrue andmisstate someone's testimony merely to prejudice less cognitively awarepeople to their way of thinking. I am firmly convinced that had the L.A.D.A.'s office not had such a lousy reputation for losing high profile cases-- which apparently they shouldn't have brought in the first place, if thegang of three hadn't been trying to resurrect their image in the eyes ofthe public and if Gil Garcetti, Marsha Clark or Christopher Darden had beendoing what they so pompously and arrogantly insisted only they have thepower to do, they would have dismissed the case five minutes after it waslaid on their desk. However, they saw in O.J. Simpson, a black man who mayhave committed the murders and since they could not readily find anothersuspect, he would temporarily do. It wasn't until the D.A.'s office concoctedtheir time line and various theories that the L.A. P.D. accommodated themwith evidence. However, the L.A. P.D., or for that matter the L.A. D.A.'soffice, is not intelligent enough to realize the proof they provided contradictedand nullified all other theories and evidence.

By the way, I'm not an attorney. I'm just a potential juror and brain injuredwriter who is not impressed by people and won't take someone's word forsomething just because they say it is so. I insisted the prosecution proveits case which they couldn't. I insist on being personally convinced byreal evidence not 6 months of meaningless diatribe, pointless and irrelevantexpert testimony designed to obfuscate the orderly comprehension of basic,real and meaningful facts.

I disturbingly witnessed the systematic degradation of our legal system,by the gang of three twisting, misstating and concealing exculpatory evidencebut then after failing to secure a conviction, they constantly bait racialtensions and systematically slander of O.J. Simpson by accusing O.J. Simpsonof the murder for which he was acquitted, then insisting he got off scot-free.I have seen the numerous pundits on CNN and network talk shows, and justlast night Vincent Bugliosi on CNN Larry King Live, not only slandered O.J.Simpson but also degrade everybody from Judge Ito down to Marsha Clark andChristopher Darden, as if the pundit could have done a better job convictinga person in the absence of any real and only planted evidence.

Admittedly, I was either in the right place at the right time, the rightplace at the wrong time, the wrong place at the right time or the wrongplace at the wrong time depending on who you are. Needless to say for most,being disabled and now a writer, I was home in my computer room and ableto watch the whole spectacle. I was and am still appalled at the seemingly,highly educated, professionally sophisticate adults acting like immaturechildren in the first or second grade out on the school play grounds throwingtantrums screaming at the top of their lungs, "Give me my marbles andstop cheating or I'll take my marbles and go home," intermittentlyas they bawl "bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa."

Every week almost, I turn on the TV to watch some other slimy little slug
slither out from under a rock to divulge their opinion and capitalize onthe murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman making millions of dollarsslandering O.J. Simpson and criticizing him for selling a book and videotape. Those slimy mentally sluggish pundits are violently opposed to O.J.Simpson selling a book and video tape to get the truth -- or at least thetruth as he sees it -- out to the public after a year of having to takethe public's childish lies and bullshit. O.J. Simpson is only trying tocounter the deluge of slander and false information which gratuitously findsits way into print and air waves. Why are the pundits and purveyors or liesand falsehoods so eager to meddle in something they know nothing about! MONEY!

After a year of having to endure scurrilous slander by the Los AngelesD.A.'s office, leaking of fraudulent information, then failing to securea conviction, the gang of three continuously violate O.J. Simpson's rightsand insights the public to do bodily harm to O.J. Simpson. Why, becausejust like the L.A.P.D. during this whole affair, the L.A. D.A.'s officehas the attitude that "we are the law."

I know, you say as many have, "He could and should have taken thestand." Why? I'm sure that he wanted to tell his side of the storyin the face of all the leaks, lies and pundits phony analysis but MarshaClark is a very skilled Prosecuting Attorney and could, as the police lovedto say, convict a "ham sandwich" for impersonating an "eggsalad sandwich." If one doesn't have to subject oneself to mental torture,why? The jury said they still would have voted to "Acquit" evenif the defense hadn't put on a defense. Why was that true? Think! Aftersix months of extremely detailed, obfuscating testimony which would makeanyone's head swim with facts, it got down to the credibility of the L.A.P.D.

The defense didn't once try to deny it was O.J. Simpson's blood. Why shouldthey. I can not deny my blood is my blood but the defense's only contentionwas, how it got there! Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden knew this butkept on try to goat the defense into trying to disprove that it was O.J.Simpson's blood! Did the prosecution try to infer how it got there? Yes!But they blew it by try to build two conflicting theories. It didn't takea rocket scientist to realize that insisting both theories were equallyplausible, invalidated them both, proved a conspiracy and that the policeplanted evidence. No cop who values his job, working now or in the future,and leading a seemingly normal life is going to admit planting evidence.But I have it first hand from an L.A. policeman that it happens, a lot.

Marsha Clark, Christopher Darden and the District Attorney Gil Garcettideified themselves saying that under the American System, the roll of theProsecution is "to weigh the evidence and seek the truth. If the evidencedoesn't warrant prosecution or there is insufficient evidence to warrantprosecution, the D.A. can dismiss all charges." Then , they tout, thedefense attorney is duty bound by the code of his or her profession to providehis or her client with the best possible defense regardless of the truth!

That might be well and fine and have been true in theory and some exceptionalcases but in either case, once a jury has rendered its verdict, the DistrictAttorney and all his subordinates and lackeys, are duty bound not only bythe code of their profession but even more importantly, by the law, by decency,by the codes of fairness and the principles by which God gave us to liveon earth and interact with our fellowman, not to slander or bear false witnessagainst our fellowman. Just because someone maybe convinced of someone;sguilt, when the jury comes back with a verdict of "not guilty,"it does not then become the prosecutions job to violate the law and thepersons civil rights and make the person's life a living hell. Remember,Christ said, "Judge not that ye be not judged."

After 6 months of falsifying evidence and misrepresenting testimony, MarshaClark and Christopher Darden pout and accuse the jury of racial malfeasancebecause after only 63 hours of Defense testimony, the jury only had to deliberateabout three or four hours before they unanimously came to the discussionthat O.J. Simpson was not guilty. Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden loveto say, "Saying O.J. is 'Not Guilty' is not the same as saying he is'Innocent.'" Right! Only in the own minds of Gil Garcetti, Marsha Clarkand Christopher Darden, is that true. The gang of three has been blown outof the water by a judicial system of their own creation. They defined whatthe verdict could and could not say, but that didn't nor doesn't negatereality. They weren't prevented from slandering O.J. Simpson but they wereprevented from carrying out their diabolical, sinister and demonic plotto ruin his life completely.

If a jury judges me as "human," can it not therefore be inferredfrom that, that I am "not, not human" or that I am in fact human?If a jury judges me "not dead," can one therefore not infer thatI am therefore "alive?" If a jury judges me "not female,"can one therefore not infer from that, that I therefore must be "male?"For a jury to judge me as "white," can one not infer from thatthen that I am not "black," "red," "brown,""yellow," "pink," or even "purple?" Admittedly,in the minds of Gil Garcetti, Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden, purplemight be pushing it but the point is still valid.

However, I've heard most of your arguments before. Your degrees in Laware nothing but degrees in the skillful manipulation and twisting of thetruth. The gang of three would probably still say even after the real murderwas caught, "I think we executed the wrong man. The evidence showsOrenthal James Simpson is guilty as sin!" They continue to insist anddemand something contrary to the facts is true although they haven't andcan't even begin to prove it in a court of Law. They undermine peoples respectfor the law. That's the definition of a pernicious anarchists betrayingthe very constitution of the United States they swore to uphold!

If tomorrow or even today, the real murderer was found, tried, convicted,sentenced and executed, would they open the O.J. Simpson Murder Case againto officially pronounce him "INNOCENT?" No! Of course they wouldn't!That would be absurd! Gil Garcetti, Marsha Clark and Christopher Dardenwould say, "I think we executed the wrong man. The evidence shows OrenthalJames Simpson is guilty as sin," parenthetically adding, "OrenthalJames Simpson has a verdict of 'Not Guilty' which is the same as to sayis declared 'Innocent.'"

Damn, what does it take to get people to grow up, act their age insteadof
acting like some two year old down on the floor throwing a tantrum? I don'tpersonally know for a fact that O.J. Simpson is guilty or innocent. OnlyO.J. Simpson and God knows for sure. However, in America, we have a legalsystem which I believe was set up under the influence and inspiration ofGod. Does it mean that legal system is perfect or flawless? As long as anythingis run by man, it'll never be perfect! The number of people convicted whenthey were completely innocent attests to the fact that it is not. And thenumber of die hard District Attorneys and Prosecution Attorneys who areguilty of total and complete obstruction of justice, of planting and falsifyingevidence but still claim the person is still guilty whom they slandered,ruined and falsely imprisoned despite new evidence that makes them innocentof all charges, attests to the fractiousness, the abject ludicrous lunacyof Gil Garcetti, Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden's attempt at a pompousand arrogant self-deification.

The following are a few of the questions I had ever since June 1994 whichthe gang of three have successful skirted at every turn. One of these questions,e.g. The Time Line, I think would and should have been sufficient enoughfor the L.A. D.A.'s office to drop the case entirely. However, L.A. D.A.'soffice had to prove they weren't incompetent and could convict a ham sandwichif they wanted. (They could probably convict a ham sandwich but only ifwhen they used DNA evidence, they could prove it wasn't planted!) Plus themembers of the L.A. policed force were so convinced of O.J.'s guilt, everyonewas able to gain access to various parts of the crime scene to, as a friendand former member of the L.A. Police Department said, "Do what wasnecessary to insure a conviction of scum."

Today 6/12, on CNN's Talkback Live, Dominick Dunne, who is an L.A. basedJournalist and author and who sat in on most if not all of the trial, saidthat he doesn't believed the police planted evidence. Wow! And he's a pundit?Read about the Blood Trail and The Bloody Glove trail below. I can't proveit either but in the words of Philip Vannatter, "There was 10 timesthe evidenced in this case as any we successfully prosecuted in the past!"Totally amazing! That says how many people could have been or were wronglyconvicted!

A few minutes after Dominick Dunne, a guy named Ralph from Texas who saidhe was disabled and watched the case from beginning to end, misstated somethingvery obvious then touted the Marsha Clark line of misstating, misconstruingand misrepresenting testimony which she did so skillfully and pervasivelythroughout her direct and cross-examination. That confirmed for me thatRalph either didn't watch it all, couldn't remember what he had seen andheard or was relying on Marsha Clark and many the legal pundit's characterizationof what was said to tell him what he saw. Very telling as to where he wascoming from mentally was his use of phrases like, "All the blacks..."and "Everyone of them blacks are pathetic people...." That toldme he was racially motivated and he watch the trial eagerly hoping to watcha successful, wealthy and celebrated "black" -- in his mind hewas obviously thinking "nigger" -- get chopped down to size andput in his place.

Now, if you haven't gone to sleep or got mad and gone else where, I hopeI'm finished with my irate diatribe. To my questions. These are all inter-relatedso just like the irate criticism of Alan Dershowitz last night on LarryKing Live by Vincent Bugliosi, to answer one question, it may bring to thesurface five separate topics


According to my notes, O.J. Simpson had almost precisely, 15 minutesfrom 10:30 p.m., the time one neighbor heard a dog bark to 10:45 p.m. whenAlan Parks said he saw the figure of a man in the drive way. The prosecutioncarefully crafted that part of time line because one neighbor said he "hearda dog bark." Other neighbors which the prosecution hid from the jury,put the time at 10:40 p.m. and other people walking by put it as late as10:50 p.m. But let's ignore, for a second, how the L.A. D.A.'s office suppressedthat exculpatory evidence because it didn't mesh with and totally screwedup their time line. Let's give the prosecution all the time they want becausethe are going to need it.

The prosecution claims it took 7 minutes for a police car to drive fromNicole's condo on Gretna Green to the Rockingham house. That leaves 8 minutes.O.J. was in a hurry realizing he only had 8 minutes and parked cockeyedto the curb. Granted, the police photograph looked like the front may havebeen a few inches in closer to the curb than the rear of the Bronco -- theydidn't dare measure it, it would have made them look like fools, graspingat straws. That's the way 90 percent of Californians park next to the curboutside their residence. That was a real stretch and an attempt at psychologicalmanipulation for the police to have interjected. I didn't get down witha ruler -- for that matter, neither did the police -- but from the photographsintroduced as evidence, it proved Mark Fuhrman was a liar.

Okeh! But he still has his chain linked fence to scale between his propertyand the Salinger's. The fence separating his house from the neighbors lookedto be about six feet with vines and berries. Very strange! After a 200 poundman landed on all the berries on the ground and walk, none were crushedand the cob webs hadn't been disturbed. An incredible, miraculous feat!

Alright, lets say O.J. was in a rush to get in the house. Remember, heonly had about 8 minutes when he parked the Bronco in the middle of thestreet, as the police and prosecution tried to infer, and jumped out. Henow has about 7 and a half minutes. He runs next door to Wolfgang and MartaSalinger's property and despite their having a dog also, O.J. scaled a sixfoot fence just to get into the neighbors yard. (Suggestion for the gangor three: this is not a ham sandwich but Wolfgang and Marta Salinger's dogmust have been part of the conspiracy with O.J. Simpson to murder NicoleSimpson.) Okeh! But he still has his chain linked fence to scale betweenhis own property and the Salinger's. The fence separating his house fromthe neighbors looked to be about six feet with vines and berries. Very strange!It is amazing that a 200 pound man could land on all the berries on theground and walk, none were crushed and the cob webs hadn't been disturbed.An incredible, miraculous feat! But that miraculous feat was the prosecution'sproblem to explain. They wouldn't try and couldn't.

The cob webs being undisturbed should have been an obvious clue for eventhe mentally challenged to have realize that, "NO ONE WENT THROUGHTHERE IN YEARS!" But no! The prosecution, in an effort to provethey could convict a "ham sandwich," still insisted O.J. Simpsondropped the bloody glove as he scaled the fence, banging on the wall jumpingdown and ran down the walk way into the house. Amazingly ludicrous theory!

Okeh! O.J. scales the fence and bangs on the wall by the air conditionerdropping the bloody glove. (A comment about the banging on the wall: Forthose who live in California and especially along the San Andreas FaultLine, it is not uncommon, rare but not uncommon, for the house to creak,clang, bang and make grotesque noises while it settles.) But what time didKato heard the bang? He first testified approximately 10:38. Marsha Clarksuccessfully manipulated Kato into admitting it could have been 10:45 p.m.

What does O.J. do then! The prosecution claimed he went in a side door.Which one? They were locked! Oh! he must have locked them after he entered.How could he have gone over the fence? The cobwebs hadn't been disturbedin years!

Fine! Dropping the bloody glove is one theory. However, for that theoryto be valid, the other theory of him running down the driveway (Marsha Clarkmisstated, misquoted and misrepresented Alan Park's testimony) drippingblood (see blood trail) can't also be possible. There isn't enough time!The prosecution says, "the police don't have to say how he did it,only prove that he could have and had the opportunity." However, theL.A. D.A.'s office had two very finely crafted time lines down to the minutewhich would have been difficult for anyone to have met one time line andwas impossible for a person to have met them both. The L.A. D.A.'s officeblew it by standing behind both theories as plausible and possible. I willshow how they will and did cancel each other out!

The gang of three put forth another theory of O.J. Simpson running downthe drive way in direct contradiction to Alan Park's testimony. If O.J.Simpson came through the front gate which according to the "blood trail,"which Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden touted he did, the bloody glovehad to have been planted. For Marsha Clarks bloody glove theory to havebeen plausible, the blood trail down the drive way and into the house andup into his bedroom and on he socks had to have been planted or was oldblood. However, even Vincent Bugliosi said the blood was "bright red."What does bright red blood indicate. Y...O...U A...R...E A...B...S...O...L...U...T...E...L...Y R...I...G...H...T! Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden's attempt to manipulateand obfuscate the truth!

But who successfully squelched the "Blood Drying Experts" testimonyon the grounds that it would only confuse the jury? Ya! Confuse them todo what? Know that the red fresh blood means and that it had to have beenplanted? Marsha Clarks and Christopher Darden meant it would confuse thejuror's minds and allow them to have a reasonable suspicion as to the veracityof the prosecution team and the L.A. P.D.'s contention!


Marsha Clark made her debut into theatrics, by proclaiming the "bloodtrail." It looks to me like the L.A. Police used a shotgun approachhoping something would hit and stick. If they shot enough times with enoughgroundless theories, one, just maybe one might have seemed plausible. Everytime the D.A.'s office came up with another theory, miraculously, O.J.'sblood appeared. And why shouldn't it. It was his house or he had been therenumerous times. But for it to have miraculously shown up on the Gretna GreenCondo's back gate three weeks later with EDTA, then on the socks in O.J.'sbedroom also with EDTA and in the Bronco? The Gretna Green blood clearlyhad been planted but Rockingham was O.J. Simpson's house. There is no setrule that says that a trace of blood or DNA can't be found here or there.There is nothing that says where blood must appear exclusive of everywhereelse.

Remember, Marsha Clark stressed, "The Blood trail...blood where thereshouldn't have been blood." Really? Says who? That might be true for99.99% of all couch-potatoes but not for the normal populace. I can't stressthis enough. It is one thing to concoct one time line and purport to haveand show evidence to substantiate that theory, but to concoct several conflictingtheories and to purport to have evidence to support each one, any intelligent,thinking person would clearly see to have done both would have been utterlyimpossible even for Superman. However, to then claim to have evidence substantiatingboth theories nullifies them both and that's is how the gang of three lostthe O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Where did the blood come from? We are told by leaks from Marsha Clark andChristopher Darden that O.J. told the police he must have cut himself goingout to the Bronco to get the Cell Phone. Yet Marsha Clark concealed thatevidence and implied the opposite of which there was no evidence or testimonyto support, trying to prejudice the jury and force O.J. Simpson to takethe stand.

If O.J. Simpson came through the front gate which according to the "bloodtrail," Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden claim he did, the bloodyglove had to be planted. For Marsha Clark's bloody glove theory to havebeen plausible, the blood trail down the drive way and into the house andup into his bedroom and on he socks had to have been planted. They bothcan't exist and purport to be the truth simultaneously.


Remember, Mark Fuhrman testified that the bloody glove was just layingthere. Cob Webs were still intact and no berries on the ground had beencrushed.

If O.J. Simpson came through the front gate which according to the "bloodtrail," Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden he did, the bloody glovehad to be planted. For Marsha Clarks bloody glove theory to have been plausible,the blood trail down the drive way and into the house and up into his bedroomand on he socks had to have been planted.

For any evidence to have been planted by one or a hundred people actingjointly in unison or individually, that's the legal definition of conspiracy,Contrary to Webster's definition, a conspiracy does not have to involvemore than one person. I fail to understand how if you don't conspire withanyone, it is still a conspiracy but this is just one of the many contradictionsin our legal system!


If O.J. Simpson came through the front gate which according to the "bloodtrail," Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden he did, the bloody glovehad to be planted. For Marsha Clarks bloody glove theory to have been plausible,the blood trail down the drive way and into the house and up into his bedroomand on he socks had to have been planted.

For any evidence to have been planted by one or a hundred people actingjointly in unison or individually, that's the legal definition of conspiracy,Contrary to Webster's definition, a conspiracy does not have to involvemore than one person. I fail to understand how if you don't conspire withanyone, it is still a conspiracy but this is just one of the many contradictionsin our legal system!


Thano Peratis testified before the Grand Jury that he with drew 8 millili-
ters. But later, in a violation of O.J. Simpson's legal and constitutionalrights to cross-examine all his accuser, on video tape without even beingcross- examined by the defense, Thano Peratis contradicted his sworn GrandJury testimony without perjury charges being filed against him and saidhe only withdrew 6.5 milliliters instead of 8.0 milliliters. Damn, that'san 18.75% error. Even as a freshman in Chemistry, I never made that grotesqueand sloppy of an error.

Thano Peratis was supposed to have been a "professional. "TheThano Peratis fiasco was an illegal, very blatant conspiratorial attemptto obfuscate the truth and prejudice the jury. Turns out Thano Peratiswas an unindicted professional perjurer. The missing blood later appearedon the gate, the drive way, the Rockingham foyer floor and the socks. Theshenanigans pulled by the prosecution team to win a conviction are unconscionable.

Strange thing, O.J. Simpson was bleeding sufficiently to leave a bloodtrail in the Bronco, up the drive way, on the wood foyer floor where isbody movements would be stead and smooth and finally on a pair of socksin the bedroom, but miraculously, none on the white carpet going where hisbody would be jolting shaking off any excess dripping blood.


On 6/11, on Larry King Live, Alan Dershowitz claimed the blood on therear gate of Grenta Green had EDTA preservative and the blood down the drivewayhad been old dried blood. But Vincent Bugliosi put his foot in his mouthwhen he boisterously insisted, "No, testimony was that it was brightred."

Bright red blood indicates that it is fresh! How many days had it beenbefore the blood was collected and it was still bright red? Doesn't thattell anybody anything?

Then, Christopher Darden said on Larry King Live on 6/12 countering VincentBugliosi claim that Marsha Clark and Christopher Darden were incompetent,"Vincent Bugliosi's hasn't tried a case in 30 years" and "nevereven reviewed the transcripts of the trial."

So much for our pundits!


Phillip Vannatter said on the stand that "O.J. Simpson was no morea suspect than you were (addressing attorney Robert Shapiro in court)."That's a lie! The L.A. police are taught to always suspect domestic violencewhen someone's wife is murdered!

Phillip Vannatter said they had "10 times the evidence in the Simpsonmurder case than they ever had before." That should have been everybody'sfirst clue that something was not right in Los Angeles.

I'm not a Lawyer. I'm just a private citizen, a common juror. Yet I havebeen told by a former L.A. Policeman that "they would do what was necessaryto win a conviction and put trashy sleaze balls behind bars." Utterlyfrightening!!!!!!!

Despite violating O.J. Simpson's legal, constitutional and civil rights,introducing illegal perjured testimony, a gross disparity of 6 months ofprosecution testimony verses 63 hours of defense testimony, the gang ofthree were not able to convince a jury of the prosecutions unsubstantiatedallegations.

O.J. Simpson was judged "Not Guilty" but many in America areguilty of violating the Ancient Law of Hospitality and un-American becausethey refuse to accept the legal verdict, taking the law into their own handsand inciting people to do violence against O.J. Simpson.

Return to: Personal Questions & Tid Bits

Return to: Literature Page

Return to: DAVID R.W. WADSWORTH's Home Page