O.J. Is Guilty But Not of Murder 
asked by nutshell on November 13, 2006 7:58 AM
It reads like an intriguing mystery novel but it is REAL! With each step William Dear takes, you will develop the persona that you are the investigator. Then, at the end, make yourself a juror and with the facts you've uncovered through the investigation, mark your juror's ballot as to the innocence or guilt of O.J. Simpson.
A new `major suspect' has been revealed for the first time in Dear's detailed six-year investigative report with shocking facts, photographs and documents that have never before been made public! Mr. Dear who is considered to be one of the `Top Five Investigators in the World' invites you to walk step-by-step through his first hand investigation into the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Reviews
0%
0%
Watching the trial from the UK I always felt that it didn't add up. Expert testimony says there was not enough blood on OJ. Ron Goldman fought his murderer, but OJ had not a single bruise on him. There simply wasn't enough time to fight and murder 2 people and get rid of knives and blood soaked clothes. Even OJ's drains were removed to test for blood being washed away from a shower - not a trace. This book is outstanding, and is the only explanation that fits what happened. Highly recommended. What a pity the US legal system isn't interested in finding out the truth.
reviewed by ibook on November 15, 2006 4:19 AM
0%
0%
Most everyone knows the details of the Simpson case and all the "major" books written about it. This one easily got lost in the shuffle. William Dear spent years researching the crimes, the victims and the suspect (Simpson) and his family. His book is well written, clear and concise. He offers up a new suspect, one never previously discussed before. His supporting evidence is good and it will definitely give you food for thought and pause about what you think you know about the Simpson case.
I found "Guilty" an interesting, and even quick, read. I went into the book convinced that the right man was tried for the crimes and basically got away with them. I don't know that Mr. Dear changed my mind totally, but it did make me realize that there were a lot of twists and turns in this case that weren't previously mentioned.
A nice literary effort, and definitely a worthy job of research. Give it a try.
I found "Guilty" an interesting, and even quick, read. I went into the book convinced that the right man was tried for the crimes and basically got away with them. I don't know that Mr. Dear changed my mind totally, but it did make me realize that there were a lot of twists and turns in this case that weren't previously mentioned.
A nice literary effort, and definitely a worthy job of research. Give it a try.
reviewed by scanner on November 26, 2006 5:44 PM
0%
0%
I am a 72-year old white woman who lived on Gorham Street in June, 1994, it being the first cottage you would pass when walking West from the Mezzaluna Restaurant. If you were to go by there now you would see that the five little cottages which once occupied a large corner lot have been replaced by a huge, ugly condominium.
Although I heard the howling dogs (and it was dogs, not dog) that night I did not note the particular time, only aware that it was well into the 10 o'clock hour. But when I talked to my next door neighbour she told me that she always let her little dog out at 10:30 p.m. to do its business and when she heard the dogs barking, looked around, thinking that she had forgotten to let her own dog back in. Because of that fact alone, I have always believed that OJ was innocent. When I saw on TV Mr. Heidstra on the witness stand stating the time as 10:40 pm when he heard the "Hey...hey...hey!" it confirmed my belief that the murders had occurred, not according to the prosecution's scenario, but the timeline presented by the defense. In my view it was impossible for OJ to have returned home within the defense timeframe, shower, dress, dispose of bloodied garments and then catch a cab to the airport. Also, his demeanor at the airport didn't jibe. I reported my neighbor's conversation to the defense investigator but she was never called as a witness.
Additionally, I noted the lack of blood on the white carpet, the lack of bruising on OJ, the absurdity of throwing a glove behind one's own house to incriminate oneself, especially when there were plenty of places where OJ could have tossed it out the window if he had driven home from the murder scene. And there were many other doubts in my mind: Why would a loving father murder the mother, then abandon his small children in a house with an open door? Why would he leave a bloody pair of socks in plain view in an otherwise immaculate room? And would one of his children be a close match to OJ's genetic makeup?
I have always felt that some of the evidence was planted, particularly the blood in the Bronco and at Rockingham, the bloody socks (or cross-contaminated in the lab), and most particularly, the glove found at Rockingham. This is the only part of Mr. Dear's excellent investigation that I still have doubts about. I still find it difficult to believe that OJ was on the scene itself, given the timeline. But Dear's fascinating book does present a plausible explanation of the identity of the real killer. He is to be commended for his unpaid efforts over many years to get at the truth. I'm just sorry that it has been six years since its publication that I discovered his book.
Although I heard the howling dogs (and it was dogs, not dog) that night I did not note the particular time, only aware that it was well into the 10 o'clock hour. But when I talked to my next door neighbour she told me that she always let her little dog out at 10:30 p.m. to do its business and when she heard the dogs barking, looked around, thinking that she had forgotten to let her own dog back in. Because of that fact alone, I have always believed that OJ was innocent. When I saw on TV Mr. Heidstra on the witness stand stating the time as 10:40 pm when he heard the "Hey...hey...hey!" it confirmed my belief that the murders had occurred, not according to the prosecution's scenario, but the timeline presented by the defense. In my view it was impossible for OJ to have returned home within the defense timeframe, shower, dress, dispose of bloodied garments and then catch a cab to the airport. Also, his demeanor at the airport didn't jibe. I reported my neighbor's conversation to the defense investigator but she was never called as a witness.
Additionally, I noted the lack of blood on the white carpet, the lack of bruising on OJ, the absurdity of throwing a glove behind one's own house to incriminate oneself, especially when there were plenty of places where OJ could have tossed it out the window if he had driven home from the murder scene. And there were many other doubts in my mind: Why would a loving father murder the mother, then abandon his small children in a house with an open door? Why would he leave a bloody pair of socks in plain view in an otherwise immaculate room? And would one of his children be a close match to OJ's genetic makeup?
I have always felt that some of the evidence was planted, particularly the blood in the Bronco and at Rockingham, the bloody socks (or cross-contaminated in the lab), and most particularly, the glove found at Rockingham. This is the only part of Mr. Dear's excellent investigation that I still have doubts about. I still find it difficult to believe that OJ was on the scene itself, given the timeline. But Dear's fascinating book does present a plausible explanation of the identity of the real killer. He is to be commended for his unpaid efforts over many years to get at the truth. I'm just sorry that it has been six years since its publication that I discovered his book.
reviewed by jerseymike on November 26, 2006 9:44 PM
0%
0%
Having just completed the book itself and having read or re-read the negative reviews here, I have to say that the absence of detailed criticism is not surprising. Examples are not given of mis-statements of fact or of specific instances of silly reasoning, and there is a good reason for this: the book does not have such flaws. Nor is there any mention in such reviews of specific evidence against O.J. Simpson which Dear neglects to address (and he does wrtie about the cuts to the outside of the O.J. Simpson's left hand in the book).
To defend this book on a point-by-point basis would risk ruining some or most of the enjoyment for those about to read it for the first time. More than ample evidence or reliable information is supplied for just about every essential element of the theory. Granted, that evidence can seem a little slim at first, but later witnesses invariably offer meaningful corroboration. The very few exceptions to my general point about essential elements of Dear's theory are relatively minor and understandable. For instance: there is no proof that the killer called O.J. Simpson within a few minutes of having committed the crimes. Given the time frame involved such a call had to have been made if Dear is correct. Now it is so that O.J. Simpson had a long history of covering up for this person and the motivation to continue doing so, but it is still hard to picture such a call being made so quickly after the murders, given the dynamics of the relationship he had with this person and the state of mind of the killer at that time.
For me the more interesting parts of this book have to do with how Mr. Dear's investigative results are recieved by not only experts in the field of criminology and forensics, as he consults with a number of such people along the way, but also by those lay-persons who were firmly convinced that O.J. Simpson was guilty.
Finally, what is an important consideration in Dear's theory is that it is in no way premised on alleging that the LAPD conspired to frame anyone. While he is critical of the official investigation, Mr. Dear does not require anyone to accept that evidence was tampered with or planted, in order for his theory to remaim pausible, and in fact the more probable explanation of the murders.
To defend this book on a point-by-point basis would risk ruining some or most of the enjoyment for those about to read it for the first time. More than ample evidence or reliable information is supplied for just about every essential element of the theory. Granted, that evidence can seem a little slim at first, but later witnesses invariably offer meaningful corroboration. The very few exceptions to my general point about essential elements of Dear's theory are relatively minor and understandable. For instance: there is no proof that the killer called O.J. Simpson within a few minutes of having committed the crimes. Given the time frame involved such a call had to have been made if Dear is correct. Now it is so that O.J. Simpson had a long history of covering up for this person and the motivation to continue doing so, but it is still hard to picture such a call being made so quickly after the murders, given the dynamics of the relationship he had with this person and the state of mind of the killer at that time.
For me the more interesting parts of this book have to do with how Mr. Dear's investigative results are recieved by not only experts in the field of criminology and forensics, as he consults with a number of such people along the way, but also by those lay-persons who were firmly convinced that O.J. Simpson was guilty.
Finally, what is an important consideration in Dear's theory is that it is in no way premised on alleging that the LAPD conspired to frame anyone. While he is critical of the official investigation, Mr. Dear does not require anyone to accept that evidence was tampered with or planted, in order for his theory to remaim pausible, and in fact the more probable explanation of the murders.
reviewed by bigben on November 28, 2006 9:20 AM