Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
My company has always done a lot of business with Turner Broadcasting, and back in 1995 I knew one of the Vice Presidents in charge of programming for CNN (he has since retired).
If you remember, CNN spent half of their programming day during that year analyzing, broadcasting, and investigating the OJ case.
I happened to have lunch with this guy during the trial, and I asked him what he thought about it. He said that CNN had uncovered quite a bit of information that they were not disclosing to the public. Then he told me some things that I had never heard before and have not heard since then.
He said CNN's investigation had turned up evidence that OJ had been involved with the selling/buying of illegal drugs and he had some kind of dispute with some Latin crime group over this. Maybe he had been dealing drugs. Maybe he was an addict. It sounded like something of that nature. He did not get any more specific than that.
He said some of their evidence pointed to the 2 murders being committed to frame OJ as revenge by this group. He said this was a somewhat common revenge tactic by these types of groups -- instead of killing you, they kill someone close to you in a way that frames you. Sounds like something out of the movie "The Fugitive".
He went on to say that it would have been done in such away so that OJ was involved and could not disclose the truth without incriminating himself. So he was forced to lie about it and try to fight the charge. From what he told me, it sounded like OJ was definately present when the murders took place, and perhaps even participated, but not by choice.
Anyway, I found that all rather interesting at the time. Whether or not he's guilty I have no idea. But this theory would explain some of the problems with the prosecution's case. I think it's obvious to anyone who has examined the case that he was caught up in it somehow. There's just too much incriminating evidence.
|
That's some interesting theory and the stuff movies are made of. I would think that if CNN had uncovered this evidence they should have turned it over to the po-po and let them run with it. Maybe they did and it turned up amounting to nothing. It does sound rather far fetched and, just thinking out loud, if I were a Latin American drug lord and OJ burned me, I'd just have him killed. Of course he'd be tortured first a al Tony Montana and a chainsaw. The risk that the police and prosecution could not get a conviction would be too great for me and if he were acquitted I'd lose major face and all the other Latin American drug lords would laugh at me. The frame up is far too time consuming, costly, and involves too much risk to be worth it. I'm being a little facetious but doesn't that make sense? I am familiar with and have received some training in such criminal organizations and they're usually very blunt and to the point about these matters. If someone needs to be killed, they will be killed. Also, I'd think that OJ would rather risk a few years in prison for dealing dope rather than roll the dice on a death penalty case. The fear of being incriminated in a drug dealing scheme is so far better than being accused of double special circs murder.
Anyway, like you said, the killer is the only person who knows the truth. In this case I think that'd be OJ. If the CNN theory was correct though, it's awfully sick of OJ to try to take credit for the murders. It's all very twisted.
11-18-2006, 05:44 AM
Linear Mode
