Posted on 12/05/2001 7:22:24 AM PST by codebreaker
The Cross Country Killer, the Glen Rodgers story provides an insighful look into the mind and making of an American predator.
Glen Rodgers, twice on America's most 10 Wanted List, is currently on Death Row in Florida.
He brags about having killed 70 people, one of which may have been Nicole Brown Simpson.
Could it be a coincedence she was murdered just after meeting Glen?
There are witnesses who saw them partying together and there's even a photo of them together.
A sad but fascinating story that will keep you mesmorized till the end.
I felt the investigation was botched pretty thoroughly.
If you think OJ is guilty what coverup are you talking about?
It's friggin laughable that all these Conservative types find themselves at the same side of the Fence as Danny Rather, and Whorealdo, but think nothing is amiss!
The evidence against OJ is overwhelming. It does not depend on anyone's guess about his ability to use the knife.
It wasn't innocence or a great legal team that won that case, it was an inept prosecutor and corrupt police department that LOST IT.
Possibly if you're a rank statist.However even a semi-cautious look at the "evidence" suggests that he
A. Did not ...and
B. Could not have
Comitted the Crime
As a matter of fact, the Level of damage described in the Coroners reports would all but rule out a single attacker, let alone that attacker being OJ.
Yes, I have made up my mind. The fact that the people here who think he is not guilty will not answer the most basic questions about the case that I have asked only reinforces my view.
"Here, the evidence is consistent with the reasonable hypo-thesis that Rogers killed Cribbs because he was drunk, mentally unstable and, perhaps, because she would not agree to sex.
Heinous, Atrocious or Cruel
Appellee argues that this case is like Merck v. State, 664 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1995), because Rogers "deliberately" twisted the knife blade before removing it from the victim's body. Evidence showed that Merck deliberately twisted the knife blade during the stabbing -- he told the victim, who died of multiple stab wounds: "I'll show you how to bleed." 664 So. 2d at 942. Here, the doctor said Cribbs could have moved, causing the blade to twist. Alternatively, Rogers may have twisted the blade to remove the knife without intending to increase the pain. Any conclusion is speculative. That the victim may have felt pain despite her intoxication does not make this crime heinous, atrocious or cruel. That the victim's stab wounds were "intended to inflict pain" (brief of Appellee at 74) is mere speculation. Most likely, the wounds were inflicted with no thought to the pain they would cause. Whether Cribbs suffered a lingering death is not known because of the differing opinions of experts and the unknowns surrounding her death. Whether the wound on her arm was defensive is speculative."
Furthermore Hamilton, Ohio Police Sgt. Tom Kilgore testified that Rogers had worked for the department as a paid undercover narcotics informant, making hundreds of cases over the years without ever breaking his cover.
But you can ask him believe it or not at: http://ccadp.org/glenrogers.htm
God forbid you would ever entertain--interject reality(reason) in your life..OJ too!
The reality is that when you are in the jury room - personal feelings, etc MUST dissappear. The job of a jurist is a simple one - did the prosecution prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt - and the answer is no!
In the civil case, I would have voted to hold him liable for the murders based on the preponderence of the evidence.
Perhaps you should inject some CIVILITY into your life instead of attacking and belittling people with opinions different from yours.
As a matter of fact, the Level of damage described in the Coroners reports would all but rule out a single attacker, let alone that attacker being OJ.
Wrong on every count. Being a statist or not has nothing to do with the ability to evaluate evidence. That ability is sorely lacking here too often. It was the defense's job to cast doubt, and they did that. That doesn't mean the things they said made sense or should hold weight. You need to discern between evidence and blind theorizing done to cast doubt. The evidence is overwhelming. He had means, motive and opportunity and he left physical evidence behind proving he did it. End of story.
Do you buy all the nonsense you hear from defense attorneys defending guilty clients?
1) What was O.J. wearing when he committed the murders? If you believe what the prosecution said, he was wearing a black sweatshirt, black sweatpants, a black knit cap, leather driving gloves, and... $250 Bruno Mali shoes. Why not some black Nike's? He had those, too.
2)The blood at the crime scene was splashed all over, up to three feet high on the tree trunk even. Both victims had their carotid arteries cut and the blood sprayed everywhere. The guy working for the LAPD that towed his vehicle to lockup said he didn't notice any blood inside when he hooked it up and the photos taken after the vehicle was compromised in lockup showed only a small amount of blood. The amount of blood in those photos was much less than would be expected from the amount at the crime scene. Why not more blood in his vehicle?
3) The gloves. Unlike the race baiting Johnny Cochran's lousy "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit" argument, there is a stronger one to be used. Even though O.J. went through the theatrics of "trying" to put on the gloves, it is obvious that they would have been fairly tight anyway. Why would he remove only one glove at the crime scene (there were no bruises or abrasions on his wrist to suggest it was pulled off in the struggle) and then remove the other behind Kato's apartment? If he took great care to bag up and dispose of the rest of his bloody clothes (odd, remember the lack of blood in his vehicle), why would he have dropped one blood soaked glove at the scene and drop the other behind Kato's apartment?
4) Why were the blood stained socks left on the creme carpet instead of bagged up and disposed of with the rest of his bloody clothes? It was testified to that the blood on the socks was placed there and there was no blood on the carpet they were laying on. Explain that please.
The fact is that the LAPD botched the investigation and the DA's office was left with a circumstantial case that had much of it's prime evidence thrown into question by the police labs and the detectives on the case. This is all moot though since everybody "knows" that O.J. did it.
Sort of reminds me of the Jets last Sunday: Miami only won the game because the Jets LOST IT!
He left behind NO physical evidence that is not easily explained by VanNatters carrying Back to the Scene, the Sample of blood, he gave...Curious considering it was supposed to be booked in the building where it was actually drawn...hmmmmm.
Further, In order to have comitted the crime, he could NEVER have been home and in the Limo by 11:00. Period.He did not have opportunity.
P.S. anyone who lives in a climate that produces snow, knows that leather gloves do not shrink that perceptably from moisture. The gloves did not come close to fitting.
If it does not fit, You must acquit...
Lets not even get into the reams of blatantly perjurious testimony BY EVERY POLICEMAN that took the stand.
Well, considering the cops had a blood sample, not bad odds. I certainly think he knows who did and may have even been there. My bet is the same as many - that as SOP, the cops were "sure" he did it, and made sure there was enough evidence to have a solid case. If not this, then he was there or "came upon it" and tried to cover it up and screwed up.
Since you are so sure, tell me, why didn't the glove fit him? I have never heard a believable answer to this.
No, there are two of you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.