(PART 1060)



There are some rather remarkable similarities when comparing the John F. Kennedy assassination and the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial. For example --- allegations of police misconduct, "planting" of a lot of evidence (according to the conspiracy theorists), and the supposed "framing" of an innocent man for murder.

The following video clip comes from the live television coverage of the prosecution's closing arguments at the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in September 1995. Please take note of the striking parallels that can be made between Marcia Clark's argument about the so-called "planted" bloody glove in this clip and the conspiracy theory in the JFK case regarding the alleged planting of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399.

You could literally dub over many of Marcia Clark's words in this video and replace her words with "CE399", and you'd have almost exactly the same common-sense argument that I (and a lot of other lone-assassin believers) have made in the past concerning the illogic of planting Bullet CE399:

"Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive, unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." -- David Von Pein; August 7, 2006


Try and think outside the box for just once instead of a lone nutter. Almost nobody thinks O.J. was framed. It's obvious he was a lone nut. Possibly Cowlings disposed of the knife...doubtful, but doesn't look like we will ever know for sure.

O.J. was the classic psychopathic murdering lone nut. Everything about the crime scene, O.J.'s past and subsequent behavior tell you that. Everything that we know about the JFK Assassination indicates Oswald was framed. Even if you were to say LHO killed Tippit and fired at the president, the magic bullet theory doesn't hold up, neither does the sole headshot from the rear, and most people understand this.


The main point is:

Conspiracy kooks, without a stitch of evidence to support their crap, NEED to have a bunch of stuff "planted" in order to pretend that their "patsy" is innocent.

The same was true in the O.J. case, too. Because without all of that incriminating evidence being PLANTED (or magically "degraded" to the point where FIVE blood drops on the Bundy sidewalk somehow turned into Simpson's own blood, which is impossible to begin with)....then the defendant is guilty. Period.

Johnnie Cochran, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey, and the rest of the Scheme Team of O.J. lawyers were just EXACTLY like many of the JFK conspiracy kooks on the Internet -- they NEEDED a bunch of stuff to be planted in order to pretend their guilty client was innocent. Simple as that.


Why don't you also cite the similarities in perjury and destruction of evidence?


What "destruction of evidence"?

The only thing "destroyed" in either the OJ or JFK case would be Hosty's note. And we all know why that note was destroyed...right Tony? Or is James P. Hosty Jr. of the FBI supposedly one of the conspirators who rubbed out JFK now?


I said nothing about Hosty. Just destroying evidence which is embarrassing does not make someone a shooter or part of the conspiracy to murder. Hosty ADMITS that he was part of the cover-up after the fact, what he calls (and I agree) a "benign" cover-up.


Another similarity between the two cases is that these conspirators went OVERBOARD to frame somebody. Obviously, any time you are framing an individual for a crime they did not commit, you do not want the framing to be discovered. That would completely undo whatever purpose was served by the framing in the first place. The more evidence you plant, the more likely one piece of it will be found to be fraudulent. As soon as one piece is revealed to be planted - it calls into question everything else. Naturally, a conspirator, planting evidence, only needs to plant enough evidence to lead the authorities to the patsy. You do not want to overdo it.

For instance, in the O.J. Simpson case, once you have the victims' blood in the "patsy's" car - isn't that really enough? What possible explanation could there be to have BOTH Ron Goldman's and Nicole Simpson's blood in O.J. Simpson's car? But no! Apparently that was not enough. The conspirators had to place the blood on Simpson's clothing ... on Simpson's rug in his house ... they had to plant a glove at the murder scene AND at his residence ... and they had to enlist the services of the LAPD to plant and tamper with further evidence.

There was even more mounted against Oswald than in the Simpson case. Wouldn't planting Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor be enough? But no! They had to fake a photograph with Oswald holding that rifle - as if the police couldn't easily figure out that he owned it in the first place. But apparently ONE faked photograph was not enough. They needed THREE! They needed to plant shell casings, bullets, bullet fragments, and they had to fake the autopsy. They had to coerce the members of the investigating bodies to lie and cover-up.

It's overkill to the extreme!

The only way to make any sense of all this evidence (in both cases) is to come to the common sense conclusion that the REASON that it is "overkill" is because the evidence is indicating EXACTLY what it seems to be indicating - the defendant is truly guilty of the crime. It LOOKS like he did it because he DID do it!

If you want a good laugh, read Robert Groden's testimony in O.J. Simpson's civil trial. He was being challenged as a photographic expert. You'll recall, this is the only "expert" Simpson's attorneys could find who was willing to take the stand and swear, under oath, that the photographs of O.J. Simpson wearing those "ugly ass" Bruno Magli shoes were faked - a common theme with Groden.


In defense of OJ's lawyers, they were doing their job, as revolting as we might find it. They are supposed to work in their client's best interest. The ethics of their profession demands it. CT's on this board don't have that defense. So what is their excuse for trying to subvert the truth?


There is no reasonable "defense" for the lawyers' actions in the O.J. case (IMO). They overstepped every boundary of ethics and professionalism, and they surely HAD to know it.

Yes, it's okay for lawyers to defend guilty clients. That happens every day. It's the way the court system works. But Simpson's lawyers went far beyond the norm when defending their client, and Johnnie Cochran's "Fuhrman Equals Hitler" analogy in his final summation to the jury boldly illustrates that sad fact.


As disgusted as I was with the OJ verdict, I cannot place blame with the defense team. They did what they were hired to do and what the ethics of their profession demanded. They were responsible for one thing, looking out for the best interests of their client, even if they knew he was actually guilty, which I'm sure they knew.

The blame for the verdict clearly rests with an incompetent prosecution and a gullible jury, both of which were no match for the multi-million dollar dream team OJ hired [to] let him get away with murder.



You think that Cochran's and Scheck's professional ethics "demanded" that the defense team go about the task of accusing the entire Los Angeles Police Department of trying to frame Simpson for two murders?

The defense FAR overstepped their bounds in the Simpson case and everybody knows it, with respect to basic ethics and otherwise.

Philip Vannatter probably should have sued the expensive pants off of Johnnie Cochran for defamation. Phil just might have won that lawsuit too, considering the nonexistent "case" that Cochran had against Phil and the LAPD.


You don't seem to understand. The defendant is truly guilty of the crime, but that doesn't stop the cops from planting evidence to make sure that enough evidence will be found to convict. Our local cops do it all the time, planting drugs and money on known drug dealers.


So, per Tony Marsh, Mark Fuhrman risked his own freedom (and even his life) by planting evidence, even though such "planting" was totally unneeded...because O.J. was GUILTY ANYWAY. But Fuhrman somehow KNEW (evidently) that the real evidence against Simpson wouldn't be nearly enough to hang him--so he plants a glove to make the GUILTY man seem MORE GUILTY.

Okay. Whatever floats your yacht, Tony.

But Tony, naturally, totally ignores the FACT that Mark Fuhrman could not possibly have "planted" that glove at Rockingham....and that's because FOURTEEN different LAPD officers testified that they saw ONLY ONE GLOVE at the crime scene BEFORE Fuhrman ever even got there!

But Tony wants to believe (evidently) that ALL FOURTEEN of those cops lied....or that somehow they all missed seeing a SECOND glove, and Fuhrman was the only officer to see that second glove at the Bundy crime scene that night.

Let's now watch as Tony twists and mangles the known evidence to fit his glove-planting scenario. It's always fun to watch a conspiracist do that, isn't it?


How did he risk his own freedom? He was convicted of perjury and he didn't go to prison or get killed. If OJ Simpson had been convicted, then maybe Fuhrman would have been killed.

He [Fuhrman] didn't SEE enough evidence and the fact that the jury found Simpson NOT GUILTY proves my point that they didn't have enough evidence to convict.

Cops miss evidence all the time.

A detective's job is different than a beat cop's.


Yep. I was right when I said....

"Let's now watch as Tony twists and mangles the known evidence to fit his glove-planting scenario. It's always fun to watch a conspiracist do that, isn't it?"

Thanks, Tony. You're as dependable as a morning sunrise.


OJ did it, a truth almost universally acknowledged. You have the opposite with the Kennedy assassination. OJ got off because it was [a] black jury who had chips on their shoulder[s] about the police.

This muckraking, of trying to compare the assassination of JFK and the debate surrounding it, to other discredited, corrupt or unsavoury things, like the OJ trial or the belief in UFOs or the belief the moon landings were faked, is intellectually dishonest, and a sign of how desperate some Lone Nutters are becoming.


Oh, pleeeease! You're dreaming.

I was merely pointing out a FACT, with that fact being: The O.J. Simpson and JFK murder cases have a lot of things in common.

And another point I was making (actually, I guess this was my biggest "point" of all) is this----

When attempting to defend either killer (OJ and LHO), a person putting on that defense is forced to ignore or mangle the evidence in each murder case -- such as pretending all of the evidence was planted and/or tainted in some way, which is exactly what the Simpson Scheme Team of lawyers did in 1995, and it is exactly what the conspiracy kooks of the world do every day of their lives with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination.

So, Thalia [T.J.], tell me again how my above observations turn me into a "desperate" LNer?


One question:

Did the prosecution's "common-sense argument" ultimately win the Simpson case?


It sure would have helped if the prosecution had presented ALL of the evidence against Simpson, but they didn't.

And it would have also helped (immeasurably) if the jury had some "common sense" of its own. But, as we all know, they possessed none.

Quoting from my review of Vince Bugliosi's video series "Absolutely 100% Guilty":

"I had always thought when viewing the trial day by day, that there simply must have been SOME legal roadblock which caused the prosecution to NOT present to the jury two of THE biggest incriminating pieces of evidence in the case that would have gone a long way toward proving Simpson's guilt in the two brutal June 12, 1994, murders with which he was charged -- that evidence being:

Simpson's 32-minute recorded statement to Los Angeles police the day after the murders (in which he admitted to having been bleeding the night before and further advised the authorities that he just simply couldn't remember how he happened to receive the deep cut on his left hand just hours earlier). ....

Plus: The famous "Bronco Chase" of June 17, 1994 [see video below], when Simpson attempted to flee L.A. in his friend Al Cowling's Ford Bronco -- with gun, passport, disguise, and thousands of dollars in cash safely aboard the vehicle. All of this equipment and money, according to Simpson, was needed to simply visit Nicole's gravesite. [LOL.]

I kept telling myself that there MUST be some legal precedent that kept Clark and Darden from introducing this crucial evidence, damning to the defense's case, to the jury. But, alas, there was NO such legal reason to have excluded this critical evidence, and Mr. Bugliosi tells us this during this video program. (No wonder he's so boiling mad at this prosecution team.)

It was later learned that the prosecutors didn't introduce this valuable evidence at the trial for the flimsiest of reasons -- they didn't want the jury to feel "sympathy" toward Simpson. Plus, the lawyers decided not to use Simpson's police statement because they didn't want to have the jury "hear Simpson saying he was not guilty out of his own mouth" (paraphrased quote).

Mr. Bugliosi has a field day with that last piece of inane reasoning. Because, when you think about it for a second, you can see how flimsy (and silly) a reason that is to not introduce a critical piece of damaging evidence against the defendant. It's ultra-silly because the jury ALREADY OBVIOUSLY KNEW that Simpson had pled "Not Guilty" to both counts of murder -- which is the whole reason there was a trial in the first place! Why would hearing him say it on tape make a huge difference?! It's the entire reason they (the jury) were there at all, because he didn't plead guilty!"
-- DVP; September 2005




Thanks for the link, John.

And, BTW, when I post something on my sites or here at Facebook about the "JFK/OJ Similarities", I don't want people reading those posts to think that I am claiming that I myself am the very first person on the planet to ever point out such parallels. I know that many people in the past have written about this subject before I ever wrote a single word about anything on the Internet. (My first Internet post was on this aviation forum in the year 2000, BTW.)

So I hope people don't think I am trying to put forth a unique theory that is all my own. Heavens, no. I just like to post about those two fascinating cases every now and again.


Understood. I was just "piling on" about the similiarities.


I don't mind people "piling on" at all. Especially if the people doing the "piling" are credible people whose work I have enjoyed for years --- such as John McAdams, or Jean Davison, or Dale Myers, among others.

Re: the O.J. case by itself --- I want some slick lawyer to tell me how BOTH of the things I talk about at this link [and also reprinted below on this webpage] could have occurred in the SAME case (the Simpson murder case)? With one of these things being NON-sinister, and the other being sinister as all get out. The stars were aligned just perfectly for the LAPD, I guess. It's hilarious.

While rewatching the closing arguments of the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial (as I edited together a multi-part series of videos dealing with those closing arguments by the prosecution and defense), something interesting occurred to me out of the blue that I had never thought about before. (At least I think it's kind of interesting anyway.)

And these observations concerning the O.J. Simpson case [shown here] could be generally applied in some areas of the JFK case too -- by asking yourself this:

Is it reasonable to believe that PRE-assassination conspirators as well as POST-assassination Government and law enforcement agencies would have possessed a UNIFIED DESIRE to want to frame the very same person (Lee Harvey Oswald) for the murders of both President John F. Kennedy and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit?

Food for thought.


FYI / FWIW....

I recently discovered something related to the O.J. Simpson murder case that just goes to prove that even an "expert" on a particular subject can make a mistake every now and then....

Vincent Bugliosi, who wrote the best-selling book "Outrage" about the Simpson case in 1996, said in that book and also in many of his interviews that when O.J. Simpson uttered the words "I have no idea, man" during his interrogation with Los Angeles police detectives Philip Vannatter and Tom Lange on June 13, 1994 (the day after the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman), Simpson was referring to the injury on his left hand that he earlier admitted he had cut the previous night.

But when we listen to the actual tape recording of the 6/13/94 interview with Simpson, or read the written transcript of the interview, it becomes clear that Simpson is not talking about the cut on his finger when he answered a question with the words "I have no idea, man".

The previous series of questions during the interview had, indeed, been focusing on Simpson's bloody finger, but then the questioning took an abrupt turn, and when Detective Vannatter asked O.J., "What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?", that question (and Simpson's answer that followed) obviously had nothing to do with how O.J. cut his finger, but was concentrated instead on what had happened to cause Simpson's ex-wife to be murdered the previous night.

Here's more of the exchange in question:

PHILIP VANNATTER -- "What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?"

O.J. SIMPSON -- "I have no idea, man. You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea. When you said to my daughter, who said something to me today, that somebody else might have been involved, I have absolutely no idea what happened. I don't know how, why or what. But you guys haven't told me anything. Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a bit."

VANNATTER -- "Well, we don't know a lot of answers to these questions yet ourselves, O.J., okay?"


Previously in the same interview, Simpson does, indeed, feign ignorance about how he got the cut on his left hand, but Mr. Bugliosi was definitely wrong when he said in many of his interviews (such as the one below; at about the 9-minute mark) that O.J.'s "I have no idea, man" statement was referring to the cut on Simpson's finger.

Embedded below is the audio of the entire 32-minute interview that the police had with O.J. Simpson on June 13, 1994. The portion of the interview I've been talking about occurs about 20 minutes in:

I'm sure there are some conspiracy theorists out there who probably think Vincent Bugliosi's mistake regarding O.J.'s "I have no idea, man" remark was a deliberate and malicious lie uttered by Vince in order to intentionally deceive people. Naturally, being a long-time admirer of the late Mr. Bugliosi, I would adamantly disagree with any such negative assessment of Vince's error. And the reason I would so strongly disagree is....

"I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to print something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. I will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort of devious cloth." -- DVP; July 14, 2011


[Posted at Amazon.com by David Von Pein on April 7, 2010....]


Former football star O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994. The evidence couldn't be any clearer and more definitive. O.J. Simpson is guilty of those two murders.

The lies that Simpson told to the police during his 32-minute interview with Detectives Tom Lange and Phil Vannatter the day after the murders, plus the obvious lie he told to limo driver Allan Park on the night of the killings ("I overslept; I just got out of the shower; I'll be down in a minute") are enough, all by themselves, to convince any sensible and reasonable person of Simpson's guilt. And that's not even including the fact that Simpson's own blood was found at the scene of the crime and the blood of the two murder victims was found inside his house and car.

But I want to talk about something else here. I want everyone who currently believes that O.J. Simpson is innocent of committing these murders to ask themselves if the following scenario that I'm going to be talking about could possibly be true. Is the following scenario really a believable and reasonable scenario?

Incredibly, Simpson's team of high-priced defense lawyers did, indeed, want the jury at O.J.'s 1995 criminal trial to think that the following set of circumstances WAS reasonable and WAS believable and WAS the absolute truth. And those defense attorneys, amazingly, actually succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of each of those twelve jurors, thereby causing those jurors to allow a double-murderer to walk out of a Los Angeles courtroom a free man.

In order to believe (for even one second) that the defense team's theories about O.J. Simpson's innocence were true, those defense lawyers (including the likes of Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck) had to get the jury to swallow the fantastic and outrageous notion that the following two things occurred, IN TANDEM, in this murder case:

1.) According to the defense lawyers, Orenthal James Simpson was framed for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman by various members of the Los Angeles Police Department, most notably Detective Mark Fuhrman, who was accused by the defense of planting a bloody glove on Simpson's property a few hours after the murders were committed.

And, incredibly, defense attorneys Cochran and Scheck wanted the jury to believe that not only did Fuhrman have a desire to frame Mr. Simpson, but that several other members of the Los Angeles Police Department ALSO wanted to take part in the so-called "frame-up" of O.J. Simpson too.

The silly defense team really had no choice but to put forth the allegation that other LAPD members wanted to join forces with Fuhrman and frame Simpson, because the evidence is clear that Mark Fuhrman was taken off of the case on June 13th, 1994, and would have had no opportunity at all to "plant" any blood at Simpson's Rockingham estate the day after the murders.

So, the defense attorneys leave the "planting" of the blood and other evidence (such as the socks in Simpson's bedroom) up to other LAPD officers, such as Detective Philip Vannatter, who, along with Fuhrman, Johnnie Cochran called the "evil twins of deception".

2.) Massive amounts of physical evidence (which is evidence that all points toward the guilt of the defendant, O.J. Simpson) was contaminated at the Los Angeles Crime Laboratory, which is a lab that the defense conveniently referred to at the trial as a "cesspool of contamination".

This contaminated evidence included ALL FIVE of the blood drops that were deposited at the crime scene by the murderer. (And ALL FIVE blood drops were determined to be the blood of O.J. Simpson via DNA testing.)

And as a result of this sloppy handling of the blood evidence by the LAPD criminalists, the defense contended that ALL FIVE of the crime-scene blood drops (which, according to the defense team, actually was the blood of the real killer, who was not O.J. Simpson) were magically turned into the blood of Orenthal J. Simpson.

ALL FIVE blood drops were, amazingly, transferred from the "real killer's" DNA into ONLY O.J. Simpson's DNA. And this "cross contamination" occurred merely as a result of a criminalist getting a very small amount of blood from Simpson's sample test tube onto his gloves.

And, per the loopy defense team, this "cross contamination" occurred even though the five crime-scene blood drops were many yards away, on the other side of the room, wrapped in multiple layers of paper and other packaging.

And this "cross contamination" supposedly occurred even though the criminalist in question testified that he immediately changed both of his gloves after Simpson's blood had stained his gloves.

And keep in mind that this "contamination" that was alleged by the defense is INNOCENT contamination. What I mean by that is this: According to Simpson's lawyers, the contamination was the result of mere sloppiness and incompetence on the part of the criminalists at the LAPD crime lab. It wasn't, therefore, a result of any plotting and/or scheming by anyone at the LAPD who might have been attempting to frame or set up O.J. Simpson as the murderer.

Therefore, what we and the jury at the 1995 trial are left to conclude is this (according to Simpson's repulsive defense team of evidence-manglers):

Amazingly and unbelievably, if the defense is 100% correct about everything they told the jury back in 1995, we have no choice but to believe that both the #1 and #2 items listed above are, miraculously, things that CO-EXISTED IN TANDEM AND IN PERFECT UNISON WITH ONE ANOTHER in order to make it look like an innocent man named O.J. Simpson had really committed two murders in June of 1994.

Is there a reasonable and rational person on this planet who could possibly believe that #1 and #2 above are things that BOTH existed in the O.J. Simpson murder case?

Are we really supposed to take seriously the defense theory that includes the INNOCENT and NON-DEVIOUS occurrence of massive amounts of contaminated blood evidence (which all turns into O.J.'s DNA, as if it were done by way of a genie's magical powers) IN CONJUNCTION WITH the additional absurd theory, involving a totally SEPARATE and DIFFERENT group of people, that has multiple police officers engaging in a DEVIOUS and NON-INNOCENT act of attempting to frame O.J. Simpson for two murders?

In other words, wasn't it extremely lucky for Mark Fuhrman, Phil Vannatter, and the rest of the sinister LAPD officers who were framing O.J. Simpson to have such sloppy people working in the L.A. crime lab when the Simpson blood evidence was being handled at that facility?

I wonder what the odds are of just ONE of the above two extraordinary allegations being true (let alone BOTH of them being true in the O.J. Simpson murder case, and in perfect tandem and "O.J. DID IT" harmony with each other)?

Well, I guess almost anything is "possible". I suppose it's possible that hundred-dollar bills will fall from the sky into my back yard tomorrow afternoon. And I suppose it's also possible that the planet Venus will suddenly crash into the Earth tomorrow too. But are either of those things "reasonable" things to believe (especially on the same day)?

It couldn't be more obvious that the reason Simpson's defense lawyers resorted to ridiculous theories like #1 and #2 above is because it is the ONLY kind of defense they could come up with. And that's because their client--O.J. Simpson--was guilty of the two murders he was charged with committing. And the evidence proves he was guilty.

Vincent Bugliosi, the author of the 1996 best-seller "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder", possibly said it best when he said:

"When your blood is found at the murder scene, that's the end of the ballgame! There's nothing more to say!"

David Von Pein
April 2-8, 2010
April 2-8, 2010
November 2, 2015
August 22, 2016



The Uncanny "O.J." / "JFK" Similarities....

The words that appear on this February 6, 1995, TIME magazine cover -- "Seeds Of Doubt" -- seem now (in retrospect, years after the O.J. Simpson murder trial) quite laughable, especially if you've ever read Vincent T. Bugliosi's outstanding book on the O.J. case ("Outrage"), or if you've watched the equally compelling series of videos that Mr. Bugliosi produced in 1999 (entitled "Absolutely 100% Guilty").

Those words -- "Seeds Of Doubt" -- do not apply to the O.J. case whatsoever, and never really did (except in the minds of Simpson's defense attorneys it would seem). In fact, when looking back on the trial today, it seems even more incredible that Simpson walked out of that courtroom a free man in October 1995.

A lot of this "eye-opening" revelation stems from reading Mr. Bugliosi's book and from seeing his related video series on the case. Vincent shows us exactly why that TIME magazine cover is far afield from reality in this case. There certainly were no "Seeds of Doubt" whatsoever when looking at the totality of the evidence in the O.J. Simpson trial (taking into account BOTH the evidence that was presented to the jury AND the vast amount of stuff that the jury did not see in court, due to the prosecutors' ineptitude).

Also when thinking back to the O.J. trial, I continue to be amazed by the similarities between the Simpson murder case and the 1963 John F. Kennedy assassination.

Many of the very same types of logical arguments (in favor of Simpson's obvious guilt) can also be used as sound arguments in favor of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone participation in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders.

Some of the many similarities:

>> One lone killer.

>> Two murders in one day.

>> Virtually every piece of evidence (both physical and circumstantial) in each murder case leads to the feet of one single individual (Simpson / Oswald).

>> "Conspiracy" used as a defense for the killer.

>> "Cover Up" suspected in both cases.

>> Accusations of "planting" evidence in both cases. -- Utterly needless "planting" in each case, with the LAPD accused of planting blood and a glove and socks on Simpson's property -- all of which was unnecessary since there was ample evidence to show Simpson's guilt without any such "plantings". Same with Oswald -- there was obviously absolutely no need whatsoever to fake photos, or to plant bullet #CE399, inasmuch as there was plenty of other bullet evidence (and Oswald's rifle itself), plus a truckload of additional circumstantial evidence, to convict Oswald as the killer.

>> "Rush to judgment" accusations in each case. LAPD accused of this in 1994; and the Warren Commission (and the Dallas Police as well) accused of "rushing" to convict Oswald in the Kennedy case.


I'd suggest that CTers (Conspiracy Theorists) take a good look at the portion of Mr. Bugliosi's taped arguments regarding the "Rush to judgment" silliness, because in many ways the exact same argument (in favor of Oswald's guilt) can be applied to the JFK case. ....

Quote from Mr. Bugliosi (re: Simpson) -- "All of the evidence in this case led to one person and one person only -- O.J. Simpson [interjection: Lee Harvey Oswald] -- there was no piece of evidence that led to anyone else. Under those circumstances, what were the police supposed to do -- PRETEND that evidence existed pointing in a direction AWAY from him, toward someone else?"

If a vast (or even not so vast) conspiracy existed in the JFK assassination, doesn't it seem just a tad odd to any of the conspiracists that every last scrap of initial first-hour and first-day evidence led only toward one certain individual named Oswald?

Even in a perfect conspiracy world, there would be no possible way that everything could have led police to Oswald, and nobody else, in these initial hours of the murder investigation if a conspiracy of the scope and magnitude existed as many CTers claim was the case. This is true mainly because the conspirators said to be involved could not possibly have "controlled" the actions of all the non-conspirators in the DPD and the media in the crucial "first hours" after the assassination.

Logic and common sense would dictate that something would have led authorities down a non-Oswald path had there been any evidence to point the police in such a direction. But there was none.

As pointed out by Mr. Bugliosi in the "100% Guilty" set of videotapes -- defense attorneys (much like JFK conspiracy theorists) resort to such baseless accusations of conspiracy and "planting of evidence" only when there is nothing else TO argue, and the defense case is hopelessly weak from a physical evidence standpoint in the first place, which the JFK "conspiracy" case most certainly is -- as were the O.J. claims of conspiracy, police misconduct, and contamination.

Regarding the JFK murder, if the Government of the United States pulled off a massive "cover-up" in the aftermath of one of the biggest news stories in the history of the world (and certainly THE biggest story since the advent of the medium of television, with all three major TV networks devoting every second of air time for four consecutive days to the coverage of the news surrounding the assassination, resulting in unparalleled scrutiny of every minor detail coming out of Dallas and Washington, D.C.), then I think any such "cover-up" would truly be deserving of the word "miraculous". For no other term could hope to describe the amazing job the plotters did with regard to concealing the truth. And I do not believe that such a vast level of concealment of the truth could be achieved. (Nor, for that matter, would it even have been attempted, IMO, by the people who are accused of perpetrating it in the first place.)

As for the O.J. case, as I gushed previously, I'd highly recommend reading Vincent Bugliosi's book "Outrage", which lays out the details as to why and how O.J. Simpson got away with two murders in 1994. Mr. Bugliosi's scathing indictment of both the miserable performance of the prosecutors assigned to the case, as well as the contemptible tactics employed by Simpson's "Dream Team" of high-priced lawyers, will leave the reader "Outraged" as well. For, if there was ever a murder trial where a jury reached an incorrect verdict -- the O.J. trial is it.

David Von Pein
March 23, 2005